LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



f FORCE COLLECTION.] f 



f UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. 



) 



^? - (fey 



PAROCHIAL CONTROVERSY. 



CONTROVERSY 



BETWEEN 



THE FIRST PARISH IN CAMBRIDGE 



THE REV. DR. HOLMES, 



THEIR LATE PASTOR. 



PUBLISHED BY THE PARISH COMMITTEE. 



T CAMBRIDGE: 
PRINTED BY E. W. MET CALF AND COMPANY. 

1829. 



PREFACE 



The controversy between the First Parish in Cambridge and 
the Rev. Dr. Abiel Holmes, their late pastor, in relation to his con- 
duct in that office, being important in its character and conse- 
quences, has attracted great attention, and excited a very extensive 
and lively interest in the community. The civil and religious 
rights, involved in this controversy, are invaluable ; and both reason 
and religion require them to be preserved inviolate. The invasion 
or infringement of those rights, is a transgression of moral and 
religious principles, and one of the greatest injuries to rational 
beings. Our wise, free, and independent government, grants and 
secures civil and religious liberty to all its subjects, and, while it 
recognises the existence of a plurality of sects, or denomina- 
tions of Christians, standing on the basis of equality ; it pro- 
hibits all laws, which would produce a subordination of one of 
them to another. Notwithstanding an exclusive spirit in religion is 
opposed to reason, to the true spirit of Christianity, and to the 
fundamental principles ef the Constitution of this Commonwealth, 
and has a direct and powerful tendency to produce error, bigotry, 
superstition, intolerance, and persecution, with all their pernicious, 
terrific, and destructive consequences, yet the operations of that 
exclusive spirit have, within a few years, spread their effects so 
widely, even among the enlightened people of New England, that 
the ecclesiastical affairs of many other Parishes are very similar to 
those of this Parish ; and, from that cause, their sympathies with 
us have arisen, and numerous inquiries have been made concern- 
ing our proceedings, and the effects produced by them. Although 
not desirous of gratifying curiosity, and not solicitous to influence 
public opinion, we have hitherto uniformly felt a perfect willingness 
to have all the facts universally known. 



vi 

A narration of the facts is unnecessary here, as they will appear 
from the perusal of the following pamphlet ; but it may be expe- 
dient to mention a small number of facts, which may be useful in 
connexion with those which, in strictness, belong to the controversy. 
The two predecessors of Dr. Holmes, as pastors of this Parish, 
were the Rev. Dr. Appleton and the Rev. Mr. Hilliard. Dr. Ap- 
pleton was ordained in this Parish Oct. 9, 1717, and died Feb. 9, 
1784. Mr. Hilliard was installed, as colleague to Dr. Appleton, 
Oct. 27, 1783, and died May 9, 1790. Dr. Holmes was installed 
in this Parish January 25, 1792. 

The numerous papers and statements by the memorialists and 
by the Parish, will show the causes, origin, and progress of the 
controversy to this time. The causes of complaint by the Parish 
against Dr. Holmes are formally and fully stated in the complaint 
before the ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, one of which causes is 
. the following : Dr. Holmes, within the last three years, by his 
adoption of the Calvinistic exclusive syste?n, in relation to pastoral 
exchanges, contrary to his former practice for more than thirty 
years, and to the practice of the above named predecessors, in our 
opinion, had violated our invaluable rights, as men, as Christians, 
and as the subjects of a government, founded on the principles of 
civil and religious freedom. We have demanded a restoration of 
those rights; and, in the means used by us to recover them, we 
have endeavoured to think and act with candor, moderation, and 
Christian charity, but with independence and unfailing perseverance. 
A review of our arguments, addressed to Dr. Holmes, and of our 
proceedings, as individuals and as a Parish, in relation to him, con- 
vinces us, that we have done right, and leads us to anticipate the 
approbation of all wise and impartial persons, who shall fully under- 
stand the facts and principles, included in the controversy. It was 
not our intention, or wish, to publish a history of this controversy, 
at this time ; but Dr. Holmes' church, as they should be called, 

HAVE COMPELLED US TO DO IT, IN SELF-DEFENCE. About the 

end of July last, a pamphlet, entitled, " An Account of the Con- 
troversy in the First Parish in Cambridge, 1827 — 1829," and pur- 
porting to be " published, pursuant to a vote of the church" made its 
first appearance in Cambridge. It excited some surprise, as no 
previous intimation had been made to us, that such a publication 
was intended. On an examination of the " Account," &ic. it was 



vii 



found to be a very imperfect, partial, mutilated, false, and deceptive 
statement of the facts, principles, and arguments included in the 
controversy, and to contain many uncharitable, satirical, and sophis- 
tical comments and notes, and entire copies of the numerous papers 
addressed by Dr. Holmes to the memorialists and the Parish, or 
their Committee, but mutilations and misrepresentations of the 
writings sent by them to Dr. Holmes. 

The majority of the parishioners were convinced, that the " Ac- 
count 5 ' &c, both by its deficiencies and misrepresentations, was 
adapted to produce and propagate many, and great errors and 
prejudices, in relation to the controversy, and that it might prove 
injurious to their rights and reputation, unless seasonably cor- 
rected, and the deceptive and pernicious tendency of it counteracted* 
Under these circumstances, they considered it an imperious duty to 
the Parish, to the Council, and to the cause of religion and virtue, 
to publish the following pamphlet. The Committee do not arro- 
gate to themselves infallibility, or perfection ; but they have en- 
deavoured, by careful attention, and no small degree of industry, 
to make the following publication complete and accurate in all its 
parts, as to the facts, principles, and arguments, included in the 
controversy, that those who read it with care, candor, and impar- 
tiality, may be able to form a right judgment. They have at- 
tempted to publish true copies of all the writings to and from Dr. 
Holmes, and of all the votes of the Parish, and of all remonstrances 
by Dr. Holmes, by the minority of the parishioners, and majority 
of the church, and of every writing relating to the controversy, and 
have not allowed themselves the dangerous liberty of abridging, 
miking abstracts, stating the substance, &c. according to the exam- 
ple of the publishers of the " Account," &c. A book, perfectly 
free from errors has seldom appeared in the world ; and it is not 
improbable, that some of inconsiderable magnitude may be found 
in the following pamphlet ; but it is hoped, if there are any, that 
they will not alter any part of the substance or merits of the 
case. 

The First Parish in Cambridge, confiding .in the rectitude of 
their cause, do not solicit sympathy, nor wish to excite passion or 
prejudice ; but their intention is to address the understandings of 
the wise, impartial, and just, and the dispassionate and unbiassed 
judgment of an enlightened and investigating community. 



viii 



Those who are prepared to decide a case before they know any 
thing correctly concerning it, or, if they have any knowledge of it, 
are determined to decide it, not according to the facts and the 
rules of right, but in conformity to their own interest, prejudices^ 
passions, party-spirit, erroneous theories, or misguided zeal, &c. 
we do not request, or advise to read this publication, which 
is intended, and we believe adapted, to give a full and correct 
knowledge of this controversy, and will, therefore, increase the 
difficulty of deciding it, according to inclination, interest, party- 
spirit, Sic. Such persons will find a partial decision greatly facili- 
tated by confining themselves to the " Account " by " the church," 
which is, with uncommon ability, adapted to thai kind of decision, 

ABRAHAM HILLIARD, 1 
ABEL WHITNEY, 

JOSEPH HOLMES, | Committee 

FRANCIS DANA, V of 

WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, said Parish. 
SYLVANUS PLYMPTON, 
JOB WYETH. 

First Parish in Cambridge, August 20, 1829. 



CONTROVERSY 



Memorial of sundry Inhabitants op the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge, AND LEGAL VOTERS THEREIN, TO THE REV. AbIEL 

Holmes, D. D. , 

To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the First Church in Cambridge. 

Sir, — The undersigned, members of the Church and Society of which you are 
Pastor and Teacher, beg leave, very respectfully, to address you on a subject of 
much moment. To this they are induced by a sense of justice to their own 
religious views and principles, and by motives of friendly and affectionate regard 
to you, as their Teacher, in reference to the peace and order of the Church and 
Society, and to the influence which will attend your professional services. 

The order, peace, and harmony, with which your Church and Society have 
walked together for the long period of thirty-five years are matter of grateful 
recollection to those of your subscribers, who have, from your introduction 
to them until the present time, listened to your instructions, and are alike hon- 
orable to you, and to those who have attended your ministrations at the altar. 

Your memorialists feel that this state of things is giving way to disaffection 
and disunion, and that there is reason to fear the commencement of a state of 
feeling, the end of which they know not, hostile to the harmony of your Society, 
and, in any view, seriously to be deprecated. 

With these apprehensions, your memorialists feel it their duty, as lovers of peace, 
as friends to their Pastor, as humble wishers for the prevalence of the Christian 
virtues, to make known to you their fears, and to suggest to you what, in their 
belief,. will avert present, and prevent anticipated evils. 

We are confident that some differences in theory between you and us will 
not prevent the exercise of mutual charity and friendship. We candidly state to 
you, Sir, that we are conscientiously and firmly attached to a system of religious 
principles, more liberal, and we sincerely believe more rational and scriptural, than 
those which have for a few years last past been delivered to us by that class of 
preachers, whom you have invited to your pulpit. 

Liberty of conscience is an invaluable and inalienable right, which each in- 
dividual possesses, and should wish and determine to preserve inviolate ; and it 
will become the indispensable duty of each to resist every attempt to infringe 
that right, or to deprive him of the unmolested enjoyment of the free operation 
of his moral powers. While we claim for ourselves the enjoyment of this right, 
we are not unmindful of your equal claim to its equal enjoyment ; and we dis- 
claim any right or wish to dictate to you in regard to your own religious senti- 
ments. Actuated by friendly, affectionate, and christian regard to you ; we 
should be most unwilling to wound your sensibility, or to interfere with your 
convictions of duty or rights of conscience. We, nevertheless, feel it consistent 
with the respect due to you, as a minister of the gospel, and the affection we 
bear you as a Chtistian and a man, to invite your serious consideration of this 
memorial, which a sense of duty has called forth. 

The evils we fear are, a diminution of the numbers of your Church and Socie- 
ty, and the introduction of disagreement and disunion among those who consti- 
tute them. Several persons have already left your parish, because they could 
not hear, from those preachers, with whom you have, of late, exclusively ex- 
changed, such religious discourses as they could approve, or omit to condemn ; 



1 



2 



and divers others declare that they shall leave your society, unless they can hear 
in your meetinghouse, ministers of more liberal sentiments than those above- 
mentioned. 

These evils, we apprehend, may be prevented by a recurrence to your former 
practice of occasionally inviting to your desk ministers of the gospel, who are 
designated as Christians of liberal religious sentiments. We are satisfied that a 
large majority of the members of the First Parish in Cambridge have ever lis- 
tened to those of this class, whom you formerly invited to co-operate with you 
in religious services, with respect, with pleasure, and with advantage, and would 
gladly continue to profit by their instructions. 

It was some time since heard by us, with regret, that it had become your de- 
termination no longer to seek or permit their introduction to your pulpit. We 
w T ere slow to believe that ministers of the gospel, respected for their talents, 
their purity of life, and engagedness in the common cause of Christianity, with 
whom you had been for more than thirty years in the practice of exchanging in 
labors of love, were henceforth to be considered as unworthy or unprofitable 
fellow-workers, and debarred from further labors in this part of Christ's vineyard. 

With these suggestions, and with these views, we have been attentive and 
anxious observers of the progress of things in your Society, and we much regret 
that from this inspection we are constrained to declare our fears that such had 
become your opinion. 

Convinced that this determination, if it exist, and be pursued, will be produc- 
tive of much unhappiness and division in a Church and Society, which have 
heretofore lived in harmony and christian fellowship, and will essentially affect 
your influence and usefulness as Pastor and Teacher, the subscribers, impelled 
by duly, and influenced by the desire of promoting the happiness and the best 
interests of you and your parishioners, join in recommending to you a return to 
that liberal system of professional exchanges, which you formerly practised ; and 
in requesting you to exchange a reasonable proportion of the time with such 
respectable cleigymen of liberal sentiments in this vicinity, as have heretofore 
been admitted into your pulpit, and with others of similar character, for the 
purpose of removing the dissatisfaction, which now prevails among the members 
of your Church and Congregation, and of preventing the evils to which we have 
above alluded. 

Cambridge, July 9th, 1827. 

This memorial, bearing date July 9th, 1827, was signed by Israel 
Porter and sixty-two others, and presented to Dr. Holmes, on the 
20th of the same month, by a committee of the memorialists appoint- 
ed for that purpose. It was also seen, examined, and approved, by 
six other members of the Parish, whose names and approval were re- 
ported to Dr. Holmes by said committee.* 



*On page 4, of the pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the Controversy in 
the First Parish in Cambridge : 1827—1829," it is stated, " The first notice of 
dissatisfaction with the ministry, or of disaffection to the minister of the parish, 
was expressed in a memorial, signed by a considerable number of (he parishioners, 
dated July 9, 1827, and presented to the pastor, on the 20th of the same month." 

Dr. Holmes adopted the exclusive system, in relation to pastoral exchanges, 
without consulting his parishioners, and without giving them any notice of his 
intention to exclude ministers of the liberal denomination from our pulpit. The 
parishioners, when they first observed the change in his practice, supposed that 
it depended on his personal convenience, at the time, and almost two years' ob- 
servation was necessary to convince them, that Dr. Holmes, contrary to his own 
practice for more than thirty years of his ministry in this parish, and to the prac- 
tice of his predecessors, the Rev. Mr. Hilliard, and Rev. Dr. Appleton, had de- 
termined to pursue the arrogant and uncharitable system of exclusion. 

It will be perceived from Dr. Holmes' papers, addressed to the parishioners and 
parish, that he, during a considerable period after the memorial was presented to 
him, endeavored to conceal his determination to adhere to that system, and that 
he finally very reluctantly acknowledged his resolution not to exchange, in 
future, with such liberal preachers, as he had before invited to our pulpit. 

Within a short time after the parishioners were convinced by observation and 



3 



Answer of Rev. Dr. Holmes to the foregoing Memorial. 

Answer to a Memorial, signed by Israel Porter and others, presented to me on the 

20th July, 1827. 

Brethren and Friends, 

I have attended to your memorial with the thought and care, which my re- 
gard to its subscribers and the importance of the subject required ; and "for this 
cause have bowed ray knees to God " for light and guidance. Conscious of 
having sought the peace, as well as the religious improvement and salvation of 
the Church and People of my pastoral charge, during a ministry of thirty-five 
years ; and equally conscious, that there is no change either in my desire or aim, 
still to promote their peace and welfare, 1 could not but feel concern at an oc- 
currence which seemed to have an unfavorable aspect upon both. On receiving 
the first notice of the circulation of a memorial, I thought, and I still think, that 
an interview with your pastor, before any paper had been drawn up, and names 
solicited for it, would have been more favorable to truth and peace. It might 
have prevented one mistake, at least, in your memorial, which, with the remark 
subjoined to it, is adapted to excite an unkindly influence. The passage I refer 
to, is what, you say, " was sometime since heard by you, with regret, that it had 
become my determination no longer to seek or permit the introduction of min- 
isters, designated as Christians of liberal religious sentiments, to my pulpit." 
Such a determination I never uttered ; and the remark subjoined, concerning the 
light in which such ministers " were henceforth to be considered," / never made. 

If the object of the memorial is, to introduce principles greatly at variance 
with those of your own minister, in the ministrations of the sanctuary; you will 
indulge me in candidly presenting to you the difficulties and dangers, that would 
be apprehended from so diversified and indefinite a course of public service. 

There are ministers designated as liberal, who are decidedly of the opinion, 
that an exchange with ministers of the original principles of the New England 
Churches, is not advisable. Such exchanges have been sometimes found unac- 
ceptable and injurious. Exception has been taken to a discourse; delivered by 
a minister of pre-eminent character for theological learning and talents, ortho- 
doxy and charity, on an exchange with a minister denominated liberal ; and the 
preacher has been interrogated upon the subject in the broad aisle, before he 
had left the church, in which he had performed the service. 

Ministers and Churches denominatad liberal, no less than those of most other 
denominations, appear to consider it -neither useful nor expedient to have very 



inquiry, that Dr. Holmes had resolved to confine his exchanges to Calvinists, said 
memorial was addressed to him, for the purpose of recalling him to his former 
practice, and of inducing him to remedy the complaints, which he had caused 
by his Innovations in his pastoral conduct. 

Dr. Holmes had notice, that a majority of his parishioners were Unitarians, and 
were dissatisfied with his Calvinistic and Trinitarian tenets and preaching, a 
considerable period before said memorial was written. This fact admits of very 
easy and conclusive proof. Some votes of his Church, previous to the memo- 
rial, should have convinced Dr. Holmes, that there was not a perfect harmony be- 
tween him and his Church, in their theories and feelings, in relation to liberal 
preachers and to exclusive practice. The votes of the church, in reference to 
the respective ordinations of the Rev. Mr. Gannett and the Rev. Mr. Pierpont 
of Boston, are, undoubtedly, deeply impressed on Dr. Holmes' memory. Dr. 
Holmes probably recollects, that his church voted to join in each of those ordi- 
nations, and atte'nded by its delegates. The above mentioned " considerable num- 
ber " of signers, w T as sixty-three, and six other very respectable parishioners exam- 
ined said memorial and approved the statements and principles therein, and their 
names were reported to Br. Holmes by the Committee, who presented the memo- 
rial, making the whole number sixty-nine ; a number at least twice as large as the 
greatest number of voters of the minority, and three times as large as their 
average number of voters, at the parish meetings mentioned in this volume. 



4 



diverse and opposite doctrines delivered to those who compose their stated re- 
ligious assemblies. The subject is believed to be uniformly left to the discretion 
of the pastors, who are, or ought to he, the best judges of what is profitable for their 
hearers, arid who, as having a high personal responsibility, are bound religiously 
to determine what is right and consistent for themselves. 

Precedents, whether in civil or ecclesiastical concerns, are no farther obliga- 
tory, than the cases and circumstances are the same, or so similar as to present 
a fair evidence of an obligation to regard them. The religious principles, now 
avowed by many churches and ministers, it is well known, are essentially, or 
very widely, different from those which were held by the same churches and 
their ministers, thirty years ago ; and this difference has become more strikingly 
apparent, within the last few years. 

Ministers and churches, of both these descriptions, may believe, that an inter- 
change of public services, w T here the principles are known, or believed to be, 
greatly at variance, would be generally unprofitable, often dangerous, and, not 
unfrequently, injurious. The pulpit, it might be feared, would become a place 
of controversy, or of such diversity of doctrine, as would tend to produce, either 
skepticism, or an indifference to all religion. 

The responsibility of a minister extends to his entire ministry. Men of the legal 
profession know it to be a maxim in Law, " He that does by another, does by 
himself." It is alike true in the Gospel. Were a minister to be know- 
ingly and willingly instrumental to the introduction of religious principles 
which he believes to be dangerous to the souls of his people ; — should any thus 
perish by his means, their blood would be required at his hand. 

The principles upon which this Church and Congregation were originally 
settled, and which have been uniformly maintained, are essentially the same as 
those of the first churches of New England : and these are the principles which 
I held and taught, at the time of my settlement here, and which I have never 
found reason to alter. 

With these views and convictions of truth and duty, I persuade myself that 
you will consider my reply with the same candor, with which I have endeavored 
to consider your memorial ; and that you will allow your minister the same 
liberty of conscience, which he allows you. This persuasion you authorize me 
to feel, by the respectful, kind, and friendly style and manner of your address, 
and by the assurance you give me, that you " disclaim any right or wish to dic- 
tate to me in regard to my own religious sentiments/' and that you are " actuat- 
ed by friendly, affectionate, and Christian regard " to me, and " should be most 
unwilling to wound my sensibility, or to interfere with my convictions of duty, 
or rights of conscience," 

This first adverse occurrence, of serious-moment, in my ministry, reminds me 
of my ordination vows. These " vows are upon me," and it will be my en- 
deavor to perform them. It will be my desire and aim, "to love the truth and 
peace," and to be assiduous to preserve both among the people of my pastoral 
care; to " speak the truth in lpve," and to prove myself faithful to my divine 
Master, and to you ; "for we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, 
and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." 

I am, Brethren and Friends, your affectionate Pastor, 

A. HOLMES.* 

Cambridge, 28th July, 1827. 

The above answer of Dr. Holmes, having been examined by 
the memorialists, they adopted the following Reply thereto, which 
was presented to him by their committee, on the 2d of October, 1827. 



* The foregoing papers, and all other correspondence between Dr. Holmes 
and the Parishioners previously to the 20th of March, A. D. 1828, were read to 
the Parish at a meeting holden on that day — and by vote ordered to be filed, as 
will appear by the record of said meeting. 



To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the First Church in Cambridge. 



Sir,— When we recently transmitted to you our memorial, we presumed that 
you would readily be convinced, that the request contained in it was reasonable, 
charitable, and just, and that your compliance with it had become necessary, 
as the best measure which you could possibly adopt, to produce, promote, and 
preserve harmony, moral and religious improvement, prosperity, and happiness 
in this parish. We believed, that the information given you in that memorial, 
would induce you, without delay, to remedy the evils therein complained of, 
and to use your best exertions to give satisfaction to the memorialists. 

After receiving your communication to us, in answer to our memorial, we 
met, heard, and fully considered your communication, and, after a candid and 
critical examination of it, we feel ourselves under the necessity of stating to you, 
that it appears to us, in several parts of it, ambiguous, and, in others, liable to 
great and strong objections ; that, instead of making us acquainted with your 
decision, in relation to the request in our memorial, it leaves us in great doubt 
as to your determination. We anticipated a clear and satisfactory answer on 
the important subject of our memorial, and presumed, that our request would 
be granted without hesitation. The doubt and dissatisfaction produced by your 
paper, render it expedient that we should state to you clearly and fully our 
doubts and objections, that you may understand our views and intentions, and 
have a fair opportunity to remove those doubts, and answer those objections. 

It is undoubtedly true, that there is a difference between you, Sir, and a ma- 
jority of your parishioners, in some important religious theories, and this differ- 
ence, in a great degree, is coeval with your ordination in this parish.* It appears 



* On pages 6 and 7 of the above-mentioned " Account cf the Controversy," &c. 
is a note in the following words, to wit, 11 How such a difference, never before 
heard of by the pastor or the oldest of his parishioners, is consistent with the 
unequivocal testimony, given in the first memorial to ' the order, peace, and 
harmony with which your church and society have walked together for the long 
period of thirty-five years,' as ' matter of grateful recollection to those of your 
subscribers, who have from the time of your introduction to them until the 
present time listened to your instructions' &c. is not perceived. Had such a 
difference been coeval with the pastor's settlement in this parish, it would seem 
strange, that he continued here for a single year; and even his settlement, sin- 
gularly harmonious as it was, would appear unaccountable." 

The parishioners can produce conclusive evidence to prove, that Dr Holmes and 
many of his parishioners had heard of the difference therein mentioned, a con- 
siderable time before the first memorial. A large majority of the parishioners, 
from the time of the Rev. Mr. Hilliard to the present time, have been liberal 
in their religious theories. Mr. Hilliard, in his theological theories and in his 
pastoral practice, was one Of the most catholic ministers in his day.* He was 
perfectly anti-calvinistic and Unitarian in his theology, and enjoyed great har- 
mony with his church and parish. Dr. Holmes' probationary period, as a candi- 
date in the parish, was very short, and his distinguishing tenets were not understood 
by a majority of the parishioners. The Council which ordained Dr. Holmes 
was liberal, with the exception of only one member. Dr. Holmes, before his 
adoption of the exclusive system, generally preached practical sermons, to which 
rational theologians would not object. His doctrinal sermons were few. His 
peculiar style of writing sermons, in scriptural phraseology, did not clearly indi- 
cate his distinguishing tenets ; and generally his parishioners, after hearing bis 
doctrinal sermons, had not the means of knowing definitely how far Dr. Holmes 
harmonized with the Calvinistic creed. Dr Holmes exchanged liberally and impar- 
tially with almost all the liberal Congregational ministers within 12 or 15 miles of 
Cambridge, and often invited the candidates, resident in Cambridge, to preach 
for him ; so that a great proportion of the preaching in the parish was rational, 
and satisfactory to the parishioners. Under these circumstances, the majority of 
the parishioners, who had nothing of the exclusive character in their religion, had 
no cause for public complaint, or for interrupting harmony with Dr. Holmes or 
his church. Before the commencement of the present controversy, the church had 
not opposed the parish, nor arrogated the right to govern the parish, in relation 
to moral and religious instruction. Had the majority of the parishioners been 



6 



to us extremely improbable, that this difference in theory will be diminished, as 
we have heard you, and those who agree with you, or who appear to be approved 
by you, advocate the theories to which we are opposed, without feeling the least 
inclination to alter our own religious opinions, relating to the subjects on which 
we differ. 

Great and numerous disadvantages, in a moral and religious view, must result 
from a decided difference and constant conflict of theory between a preacher 
and his hearers. When parishioners assemble for public worship, if there be a 
great conflict of principle between them and their preacher, devotion is pre- 
vented, or interrupted, and their minds are less engaged in devotional exercises, 
than in efforts to support their own theories, and to disprove those which thpy 
hear from the pulpit. If the preacher and his auditors are much opposed to 
each other in their theology, they cannot harmonize with him in public worship, 
while he is constantly delivering and laboring to establish opinions, which they 
fully believe to be contradictory to reason, or revelation, or to one another ; 
and their minds are gradually alienated from him, and they either neglect attend- 
ance on the public exercises of religion, or seek some other moral and religious 
instructer, with whom they find it practicable to agree. 

We have been accustomed, Sir, to view your character with great respect, to 
feel and cultivate a sincere friendship for you, as a man and a Christian, and to 
consider you as a friend to us and your Parish. You profess your desire, or aim, 
still to promote the peace and welfare of the church and people of your pastoral 
charge. If you are desirous of promoting peace, harmony, and religions im- 
provement among your parishioners, as you undoubtedly are, it is to be pre- 
sumed, that you will manifest that desire by using practicable means for those 
purposes, and by avoiding the use of means which destroy peace and harmony, 
produce discord and conflict, prevent religious improvement, drive members 
of the Parish from their lawful and regular place of public Avorship, threaten 
a great diminution of the number of your religious society, and to annihilate 
its prosperity and respectability. You express the opinion, that a personal 
interview with you " would have been more favorable to truth and peace," 
than the circulation of our memorial, and the soliciting of names for it ; and 
you say, that such interview " might have prevented one mistake, at least, in 
our memorial." 

We would ask, What possible use could there have been in such an interview; 
what advantage could we have derived from it, when the written statement and 
request of a majority of the parishioners have hitherto produced from you 
nothing, in theory or practice, which indicates an inclination in you to comply 
with that request ? 

You say, Sir, that the above-mentioned supposed mistake, with the remark 
subjoined to it, in our memorial, " is adapted to excite an unkindly influence." 
The part of your answer in which you inform us what that mistake is, and in 
which you make some observations relating to it, is in the following words, 
to wit, 11 The passage I refer to is what you say 1 was some time since heard by 
you with regrei ; that it had become my determination no longer to seek, or 
permit, the introduction of ministers, designated as Christians of liberal religious 
sentiments, to my pulpit;' such a determination I never uttered ; and the remark 
subjoined, concerning the light in which such ministers 1 were henceforth to be 
considered,' I never made. 1 ' 

We are confident that there is not, in our memorial, any such mistake as you 
suppose. If you had examined the passage, to which you refer in the words 
above cited from your answer, and had determined the meaning of it according 
to the rules of grammar, or of fair construction, you would probably have been 
fully convinced, that there is no such mistake, as you suppose, in our memorial; 
and would have made an answer to that passage very different from the one 
above-mentioned. 

To exhibit to you our meaning in said passage, and to convince you that there 
is no mistake in it, and to show you why we are dissatisfied with your answer, 
so far as it relates to that passage, we submit to you the following observations. 



very similar, in their religious theories and practice, to their opponents, Dr. Holmes 
might not have continued in the parish " for a single year." This statement may 
possibly explain the wonder attempted to be created in the above note. 



7 



Your deviation from your former practice of liberal exchanges, which had been 
continued more than thirty years, and your general exclusion of liberal preachers 
from our pulpit, for the few years last past, had produced, not only a general sus- 
picion, but a full conviction, in the minds of many of th'i parishioners, that 
you had made the determination above-mentioned, and that suspicion and con- 
viction excited considerable conversation among the parishioners, and often 
produced the observation, that you had made such determination ; which cer- 
tainly was a fair conclusion from your actions, and your conduct rendered words 
unimportant. In your answer, you do not deny that determination, but merely 
the uttering of it ; you do not deny, that you considered liberal ministers in the 
light mentioned in the memorial, but that you never remarked it. 

That you may understand our memorial, and give to it that weight which it 
has in the balance of wisdom, it is important that you should know, whether it 
is the result of undue solicitation, or of a fair expression of the principles, taste, 
and desires of the memorialists. 

We are convinced, that no one memorialist was solicited to change his prin- 
ciples, taste, or desires ; but, when careful inquiry had ascertained, that a 
parishioner agreed in the principles, taste, and desires expressed in the memorial, 
that he was asked, and, if you please, solicited, once, or several times, by signing 
the memorial, to inform you of the truth in relation to himself. The difference 
between some of your religious theories and those of the memorialists is real, 
sincere, and deep-rooted , it has existed many years; and there is the highest 
probability that it will continue, and great reason, from present appearances, to 
believe, that, instead of diminishing, it will increase, especially if your theories 
and practice hereafter should be more rigid than they were the first thirty years 
of your ministry here. If you suppose. Sir, that our memorial is not true, or 
well founded, you are in a great error, which may be productive of many con- 
sequences extremely unfavorable, not only to the peace, harmony, and prosperity 
of this parish, but to its respectability and happiness. The memorialists are not 
disorganizes, but they are the majority of your parish, laboring, and determined 
to labor, for its temporal and spiritual good. 

In relation to "the original principles of the New-England churches," we find 
that there is some uncertainty and doubt. On the question, What were those 
principles ? ministers of the gospel, much distinguished for their talents, theolo- 
gical learning, and piety, differ materially from one another: and some of them 
say, that the church in this parish does not conform to those principles. The 
decision of that question does not appear to us very important. From the exer- 
cise of our reason, and the examination of the sacred Scriptures, we have 
derived our own moral and religious principles, which we sincerely much prefer 
to " the original principles of the New-England churches," as those principles 
are usually stated and understood, or to any other principles, which, in our 
opinion, are not supported by reason and Scripture. 

We have no interest in knowing the opinions, taste, and practice of some 
ministers, mentioned by you, as opposed to exchanges with ministers of the 
liberal denomination. If they entertain the principles and feelings, which you 
attribute to them, ours are decidedly different, and we wish that to be understood 
by you and all concerned. 

In relation to the exchanges, requested by us, we did not intend to involve 
you in difficulties, to subject you to hardships, or to ask for any thing unreason- 
able. We have ascertained, that there is an adequate number of respectable, 
unexceptionable, liberal ministers, within a convenient distance of your meeting- 
house, who are willing to exchange with you, on reasonable and fair terms of 
equality, or in the usual way, without making any difficulty on their part ; the 
exchanges, therefore, which we wish, and to which we think there can be no 
valid objection, can be effectuated without difficulty, unless it be produced on 
your part. But we apprehend, that, if the suppositions in your answer are cor- 
rect, and the difficulties there alluded to, real, those difficulties are small, in 
comparison with the difficulties which must result from a constant and long- 
continued opposition and contention, in relation to some important theories and 
some parts of practice, between a minister and his parishioners, or between them 
and those whom he invites to preach. 

The parishioners are the legal electors of a minister, and his only supporters. 
It is very certain, when they elect and settle a minister, that they never intend 
to submit to his control their principles and their taste, and to authorize and 



s 



empower him to decide what they shall, or shall not, hear. Although a minister 
may think himself " the best judge of what is profitable for his hearers;" yet 
his parishioners, feeling responsible not to any human being, but to God alone 
for their religious principles and taste, and for the exercise of their consciences, 
will never permit their minister, in the exercise of his judgment, to lord it over 
their consciences, and to violate their principles and taste, if it bs practicable, 
by any means within their power, and consistent with good principles and good 
policy, to prevent it. it is the duty of parishioners to be charitable, to inquire 
freely and perseveringly, to hear impartially, and to judge soundly, for the purpose 
of ascertaining the truth, and extending their knowledge. So far as great num- 
bers of ministers, distinguished for their talents, learning, moral virtues, and 
piety, differ from one another, on important religious subjects and theories, the 
memorialists are desirous of hearing those subjects and theories fully, freely, 
and dispassionately discussed, by the most able of those ministers belonging to 
the several denominations heretofore admitted into our pulpit, that they may 
know the whole of those subjects, and all the facts and arguments relating there- 
to, and may consider them fully, before making their ultimate decision. Numer- 
ous theories and opinions, which were formerly believed by ministers and vast 
multitudes of Christians to be certainly right, are now universally considered 
erroneous, and rejected by all Christians not subject to ecclesiastical despotism. 
Such freedom in inquiry and hearing, produced the reformation from popery, 
and has, since that reformation, corrected thousands of errors and many grcss 
superstitions, which corrupted, degraded, and disgraced Christianity, and has 
caused the general Christian illumination, exhibited by the Christians of the 
present age. Without such freedom, the reformation would never have been 
effected ; and where it is not enjoyed and exercised, the grossest errors and 
worst supers! itions may be, and are likely to be, perpetuated. Should we permit 
our minister to assume a guardianship over us, and to determine that we shall 
not hear those theories, which are most agreeable to our principles and taste, 
and,' in our opinion, best supported by reason and Scripture, and that we shall 
spend our sabbaths in attending to theories which we do not believe, a*nd cannot 
omit to condemn, we should no longer enjoy religious freedom, but be degraded 
to a most humble condition. It is to be hoped, that the subjects of a government 
which secures to them the highest degree of civil and religious freedom any 
where enjoyed, will never consider the theory of any human being infallible, or 
view it with such extreme reverence, or superstitious awe, as will prevent free 
and impartial inquiry, and critical and persevering investigation ; that they will 
never permit any one to infringe their liberty of conscience, or to tyrannize over 
their understandings, or to erect any barrier to stop them in their free and sin- 
cere endeavors to investigate, impartially and fully, every important moral and 
religious subject, which may attract their attention, and be within the reach of 
their intellectual powers. Truth is so far from fearing or prohibiting free inquiry, 
or candid and charitable hearing, that it requires, encourages, and approves un- 
restrained and perfect investigation, and is always confident of a complete tri- 
umph over falsehood, error, and superstition. We are the keepers of our own 
consciences and intellects, responsible to God only for the cultivation and exer- 
cise of them, bound to improve them in the highest degree, and to exert them 
in the best manner, of which we are capable. If our minister, or any other 
person should request us not to hear, or prohibit our hearing, what we believe 
would contribute to our intellectual, moral, and religious improvement, and to 
our happiness, it would be criminal in us to comply with such request, or to re- 
gard such prohibition. 

The rule, stated by you, in relation to precedents, is undoubtedly correct ; but 
we think, that no change has taken place in the religious theories, or character, 
of the liberal ministers, within your former limits for exchanges, which requires 
or warrants a deviation from your practice during the first thirty years of your 
ministry in this parish ; and we are, therefoie, far from believing that there is 
any thing to diminish the force of your practice as a precedent. It appears to us 
that the clergy of your denomination have, within the last thirty years, altered 
their theological theories, at least as much as the clergy, usually denominated 
liberal, have theirs. But, in considering and discussing the present question, it is 
unimportant and wholly immaterial, whether preachers of your denomination, 
or the liberal preachers have changed most ; for we state to you our principles, 
taste, and desires, and request you, in conformity to your former practice, to 



9 



adapt your exchanges, in some degree, to them ; and let the question as to 
changes in religious theories, in relation to you, to them, or to us, be settled as 
it may, the decision will produce no change in our present principles, taste, and 
desires; and we cannot be satisfied with any history of changes in theory, or by 
any claim of pre-eminence by one denomination of Christians over another, or 
with any thing short of your complying with the request which we thought it 
our duty to make in our memorial. 

A. full and free exertion of the human mind has a natural and powerful ten- 
dency to increase all kinds of valuable knowledge, to extend the empire of truth, 
to elevate the standard of morals and religion, to multiply and greatly augment 
the enjoyments of man ; and has, generally, from the origin of the world to the 
present time, produced these effects. Such exertion, instead of tending to pro- 
duce "skepticism," or " indifference to all religion," will generally impress truth 
deeply and permanently on the mind, and excite all that reverence ar.d Seal for 
true religion, which its infinite importance demands. When the mind is fettered 
and enslaved, and not permitted to examine moral and religious subjects critically, 
and to hear them fully discussed, error, falsehood, and absurdity arise and are 
propagated; morals and religion are corrupted and degraded, and thereby ren- 
dered the ojects of indifference, disbelief, and aversion. 

It is dangerous, if not criminal, to shut the intellectual eye against the light of 
science No one has hitherto reached the summit of knowledge, or the perfection 
of wisdom. There never has been a time, when it was safe, proper, or wise, to 
prohibit or stop further inquiry and investigation, on those subjects, which are 
confined within the limits of probability, and do not admit of demonstration. 
Some have imagined their knowledge perfect, and attempted to prevent further 
inquiry among their pupils, disciples, or followers ; but their successors have 
easily detected and exposed the imperfection of that knowledge, corrected the 
errors mixed with it, and have either made great additions to it, or sometimes 
entirely rejected it. A candid, charitable mind, which sincerely loves true 
knowledge, will pursue it with ardor and perseverance, and will never be so far 
satisfied with its intellectual acquirements, as to fear, avoid, or reject the means 
of information. Such a mind will " prove all things, and hold fast that which 
is good." 

You speak, Sir, of the principles upon which this church and congregation 
were originally settled. Concerning these principles we have made satisfactory 
inquiry, and are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the principles of 
your predecessor, and of his predecessor, were liberal, and far more rational and 
scriptural, than the theories of the preachers to whom you have, of late, confined 
your exchanges. We therefore suspect, that the opinion expressed by you, on 
this subject, is erroneous. But let the principles upon which this church and 
congregation were originally settled be as they may, they are immaterial in this 
case. We have our own moral and religious principles and taste, derived, as 
we believe, from reason and scripture, — much higher sources of information for 
the regulation of faith and practice, than the theories and actions of our prede- 
cessors, or fathers. Our forefathers rejected the principles of their predecessors, 
and made great and persevering efforts to bring them into contempt ; and we find 
ourselves, by the extension of knowledge, compelled to believe many of the 
theories, and no inconsiderable number of the actions of our forefathers wrong, 
and to reject them. 

When we assure you, Sir, that we are sincere friends to you, and desirous of 
demonstrating our friendship to you by our conduct, we would state to you, that 
we cannot surrender our rights, or permit them to be violated. Liberty of con- 
science is invaluable and inalienable ; and both reason and revelation require us 
to preserve that liberty inviolate. If a person were in a state of perfect solitude, 
the exercise of this liberty would be confined to himself, and could not infringe 
the rights of others. But in society, each one is bound to confine the operations of 
his conscience so far as not to deprive others of their equal liberty of conscience. 
Each one may decide questions of conscience for himself, but not for others. By 
allowing you liberty of conscience, we do not intend to annihilate our own, or to 
permit you, in any way, or under any pretext whatever, to deprive us of it. If your 
liberty of conscience is the right of deciding, not only for yourself, but for us also, 
questions relating to morality and religion, in which we have a common and equal 
interest with you, your liberty of conscience, in that view of it, destroys ours ; 
and the only liberty remaining to us is that of abandoning the religious society 
2 



10 



of which we are members, of leaving the meeting-house, which is our regular and 
legal place of public worship, and of experiencing a kind of exile, in order to 
hear what we believe and what is necessary to satisfy our minds. It ought not 
to be in the power of a minister, or of a minority of the parishioners, to drive 
the majority from the parish to which they belong, or to exercise an unreasona- 
ble control over them as to the preaching in the pulpit of that parish. 

Sir, the subjects on which we address you are very important, and deserve the 
most candid, serious, and careful consideration. We are lovers of good order, 
peace, and harmony ; and while we are endeavoring to promote and preserve 
them, we should be extremely unwilling to excite disaffection and discord, or to 
do any thing injurious to you, or your Parish. While duty impels us to state and 
advocate our principles, and to assert our rights with boldness and independence, 
we are solicitous to preserve and exhibit our respect and friendship for you. We 
cannot conscientiously forbear to attract your mind to a further consideration of 
the request in our memorial, as we feel a deep conviction, that your compliance 
with it would be productive of very great and lasting temporal as well as moral 
and religious good to this parish. Every human being is liable to err. However 
great the differences between you and us, in moral and religious theories, we 
have a perfect confidence in the rectitude of your intentions. We hope, Sir, that 
} r our further examination of the subjects above submitted to you will produce, 
in your mind, the conviction, that our request is right, and that your conforming 
to it will subserve the greatest good. 

At a meeting of the abovementioned memorialists, held in the first 
Parish in Cambridge, on the second day of October, A. D. 1827, they 
voted, unanimously, that the foregoing reply to the answer of the Rev. 
Dr. Holmes, therein mentioned, be made to that answer, and that the 
Committee of said memorialists be directed to transmit to him a copy 
of said reply and of this vote. 

ABRAHAM HILLIARD, ) The Committee 

ABEL WHITNEY, > of 

JOB WYETH, ) said Memorialists. 

On the 17th November, 1827, the Committee of the Memorialists 
received, in reply to the preceding Address, the following communi- 
cation from Dr. Holmes. 

Brethren and Friends, 

In my reply to your first memorial, I am not conscious of having given occa- 
sion for the remarks and strictures in your second. Whatever may be the pres- 
ent difference between me and a part of my parishioners "in some important 
religious theories," I am at a loss to conjecture on what ground you allege, that 
" this difference, in a great degree, is coeval with my ordination in this parish." 
The Church and Society, with the knowledge of my religious principles, were 
remarkably unanimous in inviting me to become their minister. It was this 
unasnimity, which more clearly than any thing else indicated to me my duty to 
accept the invitation. It was this, which encouraged me to undertake the diffi- 
cult and laborious work of the ministry in this place ; and the remembrance of 
this unanimity at that time, and an uncommon degree of it, in continuance, 
with correspondent tokens of affection, have constantly lightened its labors, and 
encouraged me in the performance of its duties. Although my religious princi- 
ples have been uniformly retained and expressed from the time of my settlement 
to this day, there has been no expression to me of dissatisfaction with them 
until the reception of your memorial. Had fhe.-e been any considerable change 
in my own principles, or had I manifested a desire and aim to have very differ- 
ent principles introduced into the pulpit; those members of the Church and 
Society, who held to the principles upon which I was settled, would have had 
just cause to complain, that I had departed from the terms, virtually implied in 
the contract at my settlement. If the memorial had shown, that there has been 
no considerable change in the religious principles of the pastors of the Churches 
with whom we have been associated, compared with those of their predecessors 



11 



thirty years ago, it might have been of weight ; but since this change is known 
to be so great, as to form another denomination, in distinction from the former — 
a distinction which is becoming more and more apparent, the case is essentially 
altered. If it had shown that the ministiy of our denomination, who preach in 
our pulpit, have " altered their theological theories at least as much as the 
clergy, usually denominated liberal, have theirs," it might have had a bearing 
upon the case ; but as this is not attempted to be shown, but merely an opinion 
given, that " the clergy of our denomination " have thus altered their theories, 
this opinion affects not the argument. 

It were needless to discuss here the " rights of conscience," since neither of us 
deny them. Were I conscious of having ever denied, or attempted to abridge, 
those rights, I might perceive the pertinency of what is urged upon that subject. 
It is more to the purpose to proceed to the consideration of the memorial, which 
I had supposed to be answered without ambiguity — if just conclusions had been 
drawn by the memorialists, from plain and perspicuous premises. 

By your last communication it appears, that you " are desirous of hearing 
those subjects and theories " upon which ministers " differ from one auother, 
fully and dispassionately discussed, that you may hear the whole of those sub- 
jects, and all the facts and arguments relating thereto, and may consider them 
fully before making an ultimate decision." Were the object of the memorial, 
as thus distinctly stated, to be kept in view, in the exchanges of ministers who 
differ from each other in religious principles ; it would be incumbent on us, in- 
stead of considering how nearly we agree, to consider how widely we differ, on 
some important subjects, and not merely to acquiesce in the preaching of doc- 
trines very different from our own, but to request, or advise, that very course 
of preaching. Now, against the utility, or safety, of such diversity of preaching 
in the same pulpit, not only do the reasons which I have already presented to 
you remain in full force in my own view, but they are decisive in the view of 
some, at least, of those ministers denominated liberal, whom you and I respect 
and esteem. I observed to you, that there are ministers of that denomination, 
who are decidedly of the opinion, that exchanges, where there is so great a 
difference in religious sentiments, are not advisable. 1 now say farther, that 
there are ministers of that description, whose declared judgment is, that a min- 
ister ought not to bring forward, in another's pulpit, doctrines known to be at 
variance with those statedly delivered there by the pastor of the Church. The 
principle, therefore, upon which the memorial is grounded, would alike embar- 
rass your own minister, and some of that class of ministers, with whom, upon 
your own principle, you would desire an exchange. Were I to make the pro- 
posed exchanges, upon the principle of the memorial, with a mutual understand- 
ing that the doctrines which I neither preach, nor believe, are desired or expect- 
ed to be preached on such occasions, you will readily perceive, that I should 
not only deviate from the common and most approved usages of ministers and 
Churches of all denominations, but disregard the very reasons which I before 
assigned to you, as satisfactory to ministers of very different theological prin- 
ciples, against such exchanges. For those reasons, and others omitted here, I 
must refer you to my former answer. The reasons are, in my mind, conclusive, 
and they appear to have weight in yours. "Great," you observe, "and numer- 
ous disadvantages would result from a decided difference and constant conflict 
between a preacher and his hearers — devotion is prevented, or interrupted, and 
their minds are less engaged in devotional exercises, than in efforts to support their 
own theories, and to disprove those which they hear from the pulpit." Would not 
such disadvantages, and many other, result from a continual conflict between the 
stated pastor and those who should preach in his pulpit ? I firmly believe they 
would ; — and from the regard which you have been pleased to express for my 
convictions of duty, and rights of conscience, I presume you will neither ask 
nor expect me to do, what neither my judgment will approve nor my conscience 
allow. 

With your rights of conscience, Brethren and Friends, I have never meant, 
nor do I mean, to interfere. You well know, that far from dictating to my hear- 
ers what they must believe, I merely present to them what I believe to be scrip- 
tural truths, inculcating it upon them to search the Scriptures for themselves ; to 
compare what is preached with the Word of God ; and to be " ready to give an 
answer to every one that asketh a reason " of their faith and hope. As this is 
the duty of every hearer, so it is the duty of every preacher, of the Word. " If 



12 



any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God." A minister of the gospel 
is solemnly bound to study the Scriptures diligently, to expound them clearly, 
and to apply ihem faithfully, " commending himself to every man's conscience 
in the sight of God." This has been, and by the grace of God, shall be my aim 
in " this ministry." The apostolical precept is binding upon me and upon every 
minister of Christ : " Take heed to thyself, and to thy doctrine ; continue in 
them ; for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." 
By any other course I could not reasonably expect to save either. As therefore 
I regard your salvation or my own, I must observe this precept. " Necessity is 
laid upon me, yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel " according to my 
understanding of it, " as of the ability which God giveth." Nor does my respon- 
sibility stop here. It extends 10 the ministrations performed in my place, 
through my voluntary agency. 

Believing therefore, as I do believe, that neither the unity and peace, nor the 
moral and religious interests of the Church and Society, would be promoted by 
the proposed diversity of preaching, but, on the contrary, the most unhappy divi- 
sions, and the most injurious effects, to the present, avid probably to future gen- 
erations, I cannot, either as your minister, or as your friend, be accessory to it. 
As far as it is consistent with " holding faith and a good conscience," I would 
"become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some." If I seem 
to disregard the wishes, or the taste, of my hearers, it is because I am more 
desirous to save, than to please them. Nor can 1 ever forget the solemn declara- 
tion of an apostle — indelibly impressed upon my mind in the text, and by the 
discourse upon it, at my ordination ; " For if I yet pleased men, 1 should not be 
the servant of Christ." 

Gratefully remembering the assurance you have given me, that you " should 
be most unwilling to interfere with my convictions of duty," I persuade myself 
that on mature reflection, you will ask of me no greater pledge, than that which 
I gave to this church and people when they were committed to my pastoral 
care. This I am ready to renew, and do now renew, as in the presence of 
God, to whom I must soon give an account of my ministry. Commending you 
to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and praying 
that we may mutually " endeavor to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of 
peaoe," I am, Brethren and Friends, 

Your Friend and Servant in the Gospel, 

A. HOLMES. 

To the Committee of the Memorialists. 

A large number of the Parishioners, having been made acquainted 
with the foregoing communication from Dr. Holmes, at a meeting 
called for that purpose, made written application to the Parish Com- 
mittee to^call a Parish meeting, as soon as might be convenient, to 
consider and act upon the following articles, which were inserted 
in the warrant for said meeting, viz. : 

" 1. To see if the Parish will by vote request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the Pastor 
of said Parish, to exchange a reasonable proportion of the time with such respect- 
able clergymen of the liberal denomination, as are now Pastors of the religious 
societies with which the religious society in this Parish has been associated. 

" 2. To see if the Parish will vote to request the Rev. Dr. Holmes to reject 
Dr. Watts' Psalms and Hymns, now used in our meeting-house, and to substitute 
therefor and to use the collection of Psalms and Hymns now used in the Chapel 
of Harvard University. 

" 3. To see if the Parish (if the last mentioned collection of Psalms and 
Hymns should be substituted as aforesaid) will authorize the Parish Committee, 
at the expense of the Parish, to purchase an adequate number of tie same to 
supply the Rev. Dr. Holmes and the singing seats, and any poor parishioners 
who are unable to purchase. 

"4. To see if said Parish will by vote invite such respectable clergymen of 
the liberal denomination, as are now Pastors of the religious societies, with 
which the religious society in this Parish has been heretofore associated, to 
preach in the meeting-house of this Parish, at such times as shall not interfere 



13 



with any parochial religious exercises now established and held in said meeting- 
house, and will appoint a committee to present the vote containing such invita- 
tion to said clergymen in behalf of said Parish ; and if said invitation be ac- 
cepted, to appoint and agree upon the times for their preaching in said meet- 
ing-house, and to make the same known to the inhabitants of said Parish, and 
to make all necessary and convenient arrangements therefor. 

"5. To do any other business which the Parish may think necessary or expe- 
dient." 

Parish Meeting, Jan. 7th, 1828. 

At a legal meeting of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the 
First Parish in the town of Cambridge, qualified to vote in parish 
affairs, on Monday the seventh day of January, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight ; 

The warrant for calling the meeting, and the officer's return there- 
on having been read by the Clerk, it was voted to elect by ballot a 
Moderator of the meeting, and 

Abel Whitney was elected Moderator of said meeting. 

The following Remonstrance having been offered for the consider- 
ation of the meeting, by William Hilliard, Esq. it was voted that 
the same be read, to wit : 

To the Inhabitants of the First Parish in Cambridge in Parish Meeting assembled. 

The undersigned, inhabitants of, and legal voters in Parish affairs in said 
Parish, respectfully represent, that they have for some time past, learned with 
deep and anxious solicitude and concern, that no small degree of dissatisfaction 
exists among some of the members of said Parish, with regard to the ministra- 
tions of the Rev. Dr. Holmes, in his capacity of Pastor of the First Church of 
Christ in Cambridge. With all due deference to the opinions, that have been 
expressed upon this subject, by the recent memorials, presented to the Pastor of 
said church and society, and in the spirit of christian charity and good feeling 
toward the memorialists, both individually and collectively, the undersigned 
would solemnly remonstrate against the proceedings of said memorialists, here- 
tofore had, and also against the articles contained in their petition for calling 
this meeting — and for the following reasons, vis. : 

First. Your remonstrants believe it will be found upon examination, that the. 
Rev. Dr. Holmes, their present pastor, was settled in this Parish with an uncom- 
mon degree of unanimity on the part of both church and people, as they then- 
existed ; that he has continued to receive the confidence and support thus re- 
posed for nearly forty years, and that the opposition manifested to his ministra- 
tions is of very recent date, and derives its principal support from the doctrines 
which are taught by him, were fully known by his church and people at the time of 
his settlement among them, and which have been distinctly inculcated by him, 
during the whole period of his ministry. 

Second. Your remonstrants oppose the contemplated proceedings of the pe- 
titioners, upon the ground, that they conceive the pastor of a church and society 
has the exclusive right of finally determining how far his ministerial intercourse, 
under given circumstances, are to be extended or limited, unless at the time of 
hi3 settlement, some stipulations are mutually entered into to regulate his conduct 
in this particular part of his duty. No stipulation of this kind appears to have 
been made or understood in the present case. Your remonstrants cannot for a 
moment admit the correctness of the statement made by the memorialists, and 
upon which they urge their " reasonable " request, that no essential change has 
taken place in the opinions and views entertained and adopted by those, who 
are now styled "liberal preachers," contrasted with those, with whom a free 
ministerial intercourse was preserved in former periods. On the contrary they 
are led to believe, from the most plenary evidence too, that great and important 
changes have taken place. It would be needless to enumerate the evidences of 
this fact, as the observation of every day goes fully to establish its existence. 
Besides, were this to be denied, would it have been considered as fit and 



14 



proper, in itself considered, on the original settlement of a minister, for indi- 
viduals, or even a majority of the parish, to come forward and require, as a 
condition of his settlement, that in all circumstances, which might exist, he 
should hold ministerial intercourse, in the performance of his official duties, 
with those who should hereafter be located within his neighbourhood ? Would 
not such a requisition, from its very nature, have been considered by the re- 
ligious community, of whatever denomination, as highly improper and unreason- 
able, and one which ought not, and could not, in good conscience, have been 
complied with ? And is the demand less improper and unreasonable, after the 
faithful and acceptable services of the present incumbent for nearly forty years, 
and where an enlightened and tender conscience seems to forbid a compliance ? 

It is not pretended by the memorialists, that any change of principles has 
taken place, on the part of Dr. Holmes, from those embraced by him at his 
first settlement among us; and the assertion made in the last memorial, that 
" it is undoubtedly true, that there is a difference between him and a majority 
of his parishioners in some important religious theories, and that this difference, 
in a great degree, is coeval with his ordination in this parish," we believe to 
have been made, without that kind of evidence, which would go to support, 
or justify so round an assertion. Some of your remonstrants, at least, have 
been inhabitants of this parish during the whole period of the ministry of the 
present incumbent, and can testify, as before stated, that there was an unusual 
degree of unanimity, on the part of both church and people, in his call and set- 
tlement, and that no objections, in regard to doctrine or " religious theories," 
have ever been manifested, until within a very recent period. Will it here be said, 
that a change has taken place in his practice, if not in his principles ? If this is 
admitted, who does not perceive, that the very maintenance of our principles 
requires, that our conduct should be adapted to circumstances ? Does not the 
lawyer, the physician, the merchant, and the mechanic find occasion often to 
change his practice, as applied to the same uniform principles? And shall we 
deny the same right and privilege to the highly important and responsible 
character of a minister of Christ ? In reply to the objection, it maybe said 
with truth, that times have changed ; that men have changed ; that principles 
have changed ; and, of course, practices must change. And especially, will it 
not be expected, and become almost necessary in this character, where there 
is a manifest departure from what he sincerely believes to be highly important, 
if not essential, doctrines of the Gospel ? If those styling themselves Unitarians 
at the present day, embrace as much truth, and avow as little error as those 
denominated as such in times past, then indeed it might with more propriety be 
said, that there was no valid reason why our views and conduct Should not be 
the same. Can it then be expected, under such circumstances, that he should 
exchange with those who deny the truth of what he considers the doctrines of 
the Gospel, and charge those who embrace these doctrines with idolatry, and 
a denial of the Lord Jesus ? And when among the leaders of those who are 
styled " liberal preachers," we find language like the following applied to a 
large portion of Christians — that one primary article of their faith " has a ten- 
dency to degrade the character of God, and instead of teaching an intelli- 
gible God, offers to the mind a monstrous compound of hostile attributes, bearing 
plain marks of those ages, when Christianity shed but a faint ray, and the diseased 
fancy teemed with prodigious, unnatural creations : that the believer in this doc- 
trine must forget when he prays, or he would find no repose in devotion." And 
again, upon another important doctrine, as extensively embraced by the Christian 
world, that those who do not receive this doctrine as true, " will not hear that 
God needs any foreign influence to awaken his mercy ; it will not hear of the vin- 
dictive wrath of God, which must be quenched with blood." Would not lan- 
guage like this have caused a cold chill to pervade the moral system, and have 
produced a sensation, general, and deep through the whole community? We 
believe this would have been the fact. Amid all this revolution and change in the 
views and feelings of the public mind upon these important subjects of religion, 
is there to be no change in the feelings, views, and conduct of those who con- 
stitute a large proportion of the Christian community, and who consider these 
doctrines as all-important, upon which their hopes are founded, and to which 
they cling as to the only ark of safety ? This would be as absurd as to say, that 
we would not apply a healing medicine to remedy a disease of the body, because 
its healing power had been but recently discovered. Is it then befitting or rea- 



15 



sonable, to demand of the pastor of any church, thus to do violence to his own 
conscience, to gratify the wishes and desires of some of his hearers ? Much has 
been said by the memorialists in relation to an interference w 7 ith the rights of 
conscience, and of bold attacks made upon the refinements of taste. Your re- 
monstrants would hold in sacred regard the rights of conscience, and by no means 
either deny or abridge them ; but they feel also, that they have these rights of 
conscience in common with others; and in consulting taste upon the subject of 
religion, they are inclined to believe, that the human heart, in its natural state, 
has no taste for the humbling, self-denying doctrines of the Gospel. 

Thirdly. Another subject upon which we are called upon to act in the petition, 
and one against which we remonstrate, is, " a request to Dr. Holmes to reject 
Dr. Watts' Psalms and Hymns, now used in our meeting-house, and to substitute 
therefor, and to use, the Collection of Psalms and Hymns now used in the Chapel 
of Harvard University.'' Our objection to this proposition, and to its adoption, 
arises not only from principle, but especially from the style and manner in 
which it has been brought before us. In this particular, we confidently appeal 
to the good sense and feelings of all. A naked proposition comes before us, 
without any previous consultation with the pastor or church as such, to do what ? 
to appoint a committee to confer with the pastor and church upon the expedi- 
ency of introducing some other collection of Psalms and Hymns, than those 
now used, from among the many collections that exist ? No ; but to request Dr. 
Holmes to reject the collection of Dr. Watts, known and read of all men, used 
by probably three-fourths of the Protestants throughout the United States; and 
admired for its tendency to promote the pious feelings of the devout worshipper; 
to reject this collection, and forsooth, to introduce that used in Harvard Univer- 
sity ; a collection, neither known, probably, by the pastor, or by one-fourth of 
those who are called upon to decide this important question. This proposition 
carries upon the very face of it, such glaring impropriety and want of candor, 
both toward the pastor and the church, that we cannot but believe, that it will 
be rejected, with but little discussion. 

Your remonstrants would object to the third and fourth propositions in the 
petition, because they believe that the right of parishes to appropriate money 
for charitable purposes, and the right of controlling the occupancy of the pulpit, 
without the consent and concurrence of the pastor, are points which remain un- 
settled, and of a very doubtful nature. And were there no doubt on the latter 
point, we conceive it to be unprecedented in the history of the church, and 
discovers a want of that decorum, which is due to so serious and important a 
subject. 

From these and other considerations that might be urged, your remonstrants 
indulge the hope and belief, that the inhabitants of this parish will pause, and 
seriously reflect, before they adopt measures, at once hostile to the peace of our 
society, and subversive of those principles which have, for a period of nearly 
two centuries, cemented us together as a church and people. 

Your remonstrants cannot believe, that a majority of this parish is to be found, 
who, in the sober exercise of either their judgment or discretion, would wish to 
control the conduct of their pastor, against the convictions of his own sense of 
duty, and of what we may charitably believe, the dictates of an enlightened 
conscience. They cannot suppose, that after a period of nearly forty years has 
elapsed, which has been devoted to the cause of God, and to the moral and re- 
ligious improvement of this people, as also to numerous acts of private benefi- 
cence to the poor of his flock, they will thus willingly render his declining years 
sorrowful, plant thorns in his pillow, and cause him at last to mourn over their 
ingratitude. They believe and hope better things; they believe, that if the 
subject in controversy were better understood, and were viewed in all its bear- 
ings, and also, that the tendency and final result of the measures proposed for 
adoption were duly considered, they would pause and reflect, and reflect again. 
Can it be expected for a moment, by the memorialists, that either their pastor, 
or a large proportion of his church and society can reconcile it with a sense of 
duty, either to God or man, to adopt, to say the least, the very strange proposi- 
tions, now to be acted upon ? While your remonstrants most willingly and 
cheerfully admit the full exercise of the right of conscience to all, they cannot 
be supposed to surrender quietly the exercise of this right themselves. Far be 
it from them, knowingly, willingly, or wilfully, to adopt any measures that 
have a tendency, necessarily, " to drive away from their rightful place of worship " 



16 



a single individual, and much less a majority of the Parish. Far be it from them 
intentionally to disturb, interrupt, or destroy the devotional exercises of any 
worshipper in the house of God, or to interfere with the just and rightful claims 
of any individual, or any body of men. All that they claim or ask is, a serious, 
solemn, deliberate, and candid consideration of the measures proposed, and the 
many evils which may result from their adoption. All which is respectfully sub- 
mitted by your remonstrants. 
Cambridge, December 31, 1827. 

Signed by Jonas Wyelh and forty-four others. 

Whereupon, the same having been read, it was Voted, that the further consid- 
eration of said Remonstrance be postponed until the articles in the warrant shall 
have been disposed of. 

Voted, to proceed to the consideration of the articles in the warrant, where- 
upon it was 

Voted, That this Parish request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor of said Parish, 
to exchange a reasonable proportion of the time with such respectable clergymen 
of the liberal denomination, as are now pastors of the religious societies with 
which the religious society in this Parish has been associated. In which vote, 
the meeting being polled, it is found that ninety-one peisons voted in the affirm- 
ative, and thirty- three in the negative. 

Voted, That this Parish request the Rev. Dr. Holmes to reject Dr. Watts' 
Psalms and Hymns, now used in their meeting-house, and to substitute therefor, 
and to use, the collection of Psalms and Hymns, now used in the Chapel of Har- 
vard University. 

Voted, That this Parish (if the last mentioned collection of Psalms and Hymns 
should be substituted as aforesaid), will authorize the Parish Committee, at the 
expense of the Parish, to purchase an adequate number of the same to supply the 
pulpit and the singing-seats. 

Voted, That this Parish will invite such respectable clergymen of the liberal 
denomination, as are now pastors of the religious societies with which the reli- 
gious society in this Parish has been heretofore associated, to preach in the meet- 
ing-house of this Parish, at such times as shall not interfere with any parochial 
religious exercises now established and held in said meeting-house, and will 
appoint a Committee to present the vote containing such invitation to said cler- 
gymen, in behalf of said Parish ; and, if such invitation be accepted, to appoint 
and agree upon the times for their preaching in said meeting-house, and to make 
the same known'to the inhabitants of said Parish, and to make all necessary and 
convenient arrangements therefor. 

Voted, That a Committee of five persons, to be nominated by the Moderator, 
be chosen to carry the last mentioned vote into effect ; and the following persons 
were nominated and appointed said Committee, viz. 

Abraham Hilliard, 
Joseph Holmes, 
William J. Whipple, 
Job Wyeth, 
Benjamin Waterhouse. 
Voted, That this meeting be dissolved. 
A true record. 

Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 
A true copy from the records of the first Parish in Cambridge. 

Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

In said "Account " &c, p. 11, the note on the votes of the Parish, 
at the meeting thereof holden on the seventh of January, 1828, is the 
following, to wit : 

" By these articles, specifically stated in the warrant for the parish meeting, 
the final aim of the parishioners, who called for the meeting may be fairly in- 
ferred. It appears not to have been their intention to stop at moderate conces- 
sions, if made, respecting exchanges. Their vote, at the first meeting, to invite 



17 



ministers of the liberal denomination to preach in the meeting-house of this par- 
ish, shows how fast they would have proceeded in their innovations upon the 
principles and usages of the church and society. The invited ministers knew 
better what belongs to pastoral rights and privileges, and what would be an in- 
fraction of order and peace in the community ; and would not come." 

The foregoing note demonstrates, that the minds of the writer of it, 
and of those who approve it, are blinded by prejudice, and incapable 
of understanding any facts or arguments, which are in any degree 
opposed to their theological creed and errors, to their unchristian spirit 
of exclusion, and invincible love of domination. If any candid and 
impartial person should first examine and understand fully the facts, 
in this case, in relation to both parties and all concerned in it, and 
then read the above note, he would decide, that it has no connexion 
with the rules of evidence, with the principles of correct reasoning, 
of sound judgment, of common sense, or christian charity ; and that 
those who are charmed with the orthodox opinion of native human 
depravity, would act judiciously in citing said note to prove a total 
depravity of mind. The pamphlet containing the above note, purports 
to have been published " pursuant to a vote of the Church," and to 
be approved by them, and they must, therefore, be responsible for the 
errors, unfair concealments, and misrepresentations in it. In justice 
to the church of the Parish, it ought to be understood, that those who 
passed that vote, and who called themselves " the chureh," are a number 
of gentlemen, not exceeding 15, and it is believed only 14, formerly 
members of the church of the Parish, who have now separated themselves 
from that church, and are the ivhole number of male members in the 
company, who should denominate themselves Dr. Holmes' church. 
That company call the refusal of the Parish to be governed by 
them, persecution ; and although extremely erroneous in their the- 
ory, and wrong in their practice, in relation to this case, they appear 
determined to procure public opinion in their favor, by using such 
means as they think adapted to that object. Where the facts, which 
admit of full proof, will not, in their opinion, answer their purpose, 
they, with great facility, substitute therefor their own false conclusions 
and crude imaginations, and appear to be so far deluded as to antici- 
pate, that their naked assertions, unsupported by evidence, or even in 
opposition to evidence, will regulate the judgment of an enlighten- 
ed and impartial community. The abovementioned company, who 
called themselves " the church," from the commencement of the con- 
troversy between the Parish and Dr. Holmes, to this time, have oppos- 
ed the majority of the parishioners, and the Parish, as a corporation, 
in every thing offered by them to Dr. Holmes, and in all the requests 
which they have made of him. That company have made great 
efforts, and have been unrivalled in their industry, to prevent a ter- 
mination of that controversy, unless they could make the result con- 
form to their determination to exercise an absolute control over the 
Parish, in relation to the moral and religious instruction in their meet- 
ing-house. The majority of the parishioners, in all their proceedings, 
in any way, in reference to Dr. Holmes, have been perfectly sincere, 
and always ready and willing to settle the controversy with him in any 
of the modes offered or requested by them, all of which are specified in 
the papers published in this pamphlet ; and it can be proved, to the satis- 
3 



IS 



faction of any impartial tribunal, not only by members of the majority 
and by said papers, but by the testimony of some of the most re- 
spectable parishioners, who have had no part in the controversy, that 
Dr. Holmes, after several of the parish meetings mentioned in this 
pamphlet, had assurances, which ought to have been satisfactory to 
him, that the majority were then willing to settle the controversy with 
him, on his agreeing to exchange with ministers of the liberal denom- 
ination a reasonable proportion of the time, in conformity to the 
request in the first memorial ; that, in answer to that assurance, Dr. 
Holmes said he could not exchange with those ministers ; and the 
great leader of the abovementioned company and of the minority of 
the Parish expressed the opinion, that Dr. Holmes could not exchange 
with those ministers, because, if he did, the orthodox clergy would 
abandon the Doctor, and refuse all pastoral intercourse with him. 
The conclusion in the above note relating to the " final aim " and 
" intention " of the majority of the parishioners, in their proceedings 
in relation to Dr. Holmes, they know and declare to be entirely false 
and groundless ; not only without facts sufficient to support it, but 
in perfect opposition to the clearest evidence. It is astonishing, that 
the abovementioned company should say any thing concerning u in- 
novations upon the principles and usages of the church and society " 
in this Parish. Dr. Holmes' exclusive system as to pastoral ex- 
changes, and his practice of inviting Calvinists from other par- 
ishes AND RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES, TO DELIVER EVENING LECTURES HERE 

to him and his adherents, in opposition to the principles, taste, and 
wishes of the majority of the Parish, often expressed to him, are not 
only contrary to his own practice for more than thirty years of his 
ministry here, but totally opposed to the religious principles and prac- 
tice of his two immediate predecessors, and to all previous usage in 
the Parish. One of those predecessors, the Rev. Mr. Hilliard, was 
perfectly liberal in his theology and pastoral conduct, and maintained 
a free intercourse with the most catholic cotemporary clergy. Dr. 
Appleton, the other of said predecessors, although, perhaps, a very 
moderate Calvinist, maintained a friendly pastoral intercourse with the 
most liberal Congregational ministers in the vicinity, and not only con- 
demned but severely censured preachers for rambling into other par- 
ishes and preaching there, without having been duly invited. 

The assertion in the foregoing note, that ministers of the liberal 
denomination were invited by the Committee, appointed by the Parish, 
to preach in the meeting-house of the Parish, and " would not come," 
is absolutely false. That Committee did not invite, nor authorize any 
one to invite, any of those ministers to preach in the meeting-house, 
and of course there could not be a refusal. 

fi The church," as they call themselves, in relation to the parish 
meeting holdenon the seventh of January, 1828, after stating the votes 
passed at that meeting, and giving what they entitle an abstract of the re- 
monstrance of sundry parishioners, presented in that meeting, u against 
the then proposed measures," make the following statement concern- 
ing that meeting, to icit : 

11 At this meeting the correspondence between the individual memorialists o^ 
the parish and Dr. Holmes was introduced. The first memorial to him having 



19 

been read, a request was made that the answer of Dr. Holmes should also be 
read. This was objected to, on the ground, that the correspondence was volu- 
minous and would take up too much time. The moderator having overruled 
the question of reading the answer, an appeal was made from this decision, to 
the meeting: and it was voted, that the answer should not be read : the meeting 
thus' preferring to act in ignorance of Dr. Holmes' answer, rather than with a 
knowledge of it. IVearly as much time was consumed in debating the question, 
as it would have taken to have read the correspondence ; and the objection of 
voluminousness would not apply to Dr. Holmes' part of the correspondence. 

" Other measures were adopted unfriendly to liberal discussion, particularly 
the sustaining of a call for the previous question, which precluded further debate." 

A little attention to the facts will ascertain, whether the foregoing 
statement is a fine specimen of church history, or an effusion of party 
spirit, intended to create prejudice and produce deception. The 
quantity of business proposed to be done at the parish meeting, men- 
tioned in that statement, and the length of said remonstrance, will be 
seen by inspection. The minority of the parishioners, including the 
majority of the church, at this parish meeting, and at most, if not all, 
the others, mentioned in this pamphlet, appeared, presented a long 
remonstrance, made as much opposition as they could to the proposed 
business, and endeavored to obstruct the proceedings of the Parish by 
every means which their ingenuity and zeal suggested. They, sev- 
eral times, by obstructing the proposed measures by a long remon- 
strance and by numerous and long arguments, exhausted the patience 
of a considerable number of the majority, who, in consequence of it, left 
the meeting, and their votes were lost. Generally, at said meetings, 
the minority occupied much more of the time than the majority, by 
presenting a long remonstrance, containing not only a full argument 
of the case, but a great deal of ingenious sophistry, and addresses both 
to the understanding and passions. No impartial person, who attend- 
ed the meetings, ever suspected that the minority were not allowed 
as large a proportion of the time, as was consistent with the transac- 
tion of the proposed business, as much time as was useful, as much as 
justice required, or propriety would admit. Dr. Holmes' answer was 
well known to the majority before the meeting, and there is good 
reason for presuming, that, in this and every other instance, he ex- 
hibited, in some way, his answers to his own party, or the leaders of 
it. The charge of " preferring to act in ignorance of Dr. Holmes' 
answer, rather than with a knowledge of it," is, therefore, unwarrant- 
ed and false. This meeting of the Parish was called for the purposes 
mentioned in the votes, and, considering the length of time which the 
minority occupied by their opposition, the residue of the afternoon 
was barely sufficient for doing the proposed business. This statement 
was undoubtedly intended to produce a conviction in the minds of 
readers, that the majority of the parishioners were arbitrary, over- 
bearing, and unjust, in relation to the minority, in their proceedings 
in parish meetings, and that they decided without discussion and con- 
sideration : but an examination of their remonstrances in this pam- 
phlet, and the fact, that they were supported by long, ingenious, and 
zealous arguments, will force every impartial mind to believe, that the 
minority were treated by the majority with great indulgence, and that 
all the questions between the Parish and Dr. Holmes, were very fully 
argued before a decision of them, A very important fact must here 



20 



be communicated, which will show the state of mind and the motives of 
the publishers of said "Account," when they prepared that "Account" 
for the press. Why did the said publishers wholly omit, in their "Ac- 
count," to state that the correspondence between the Rev. Dr. Holmes 
and sundry of his parishioners, to wit, the memorialists, was read in the 
annual meeting of said Parish, holden March 20th, 1828, and a vote 
then passed to place the same, or attested copies thereof, on the files 
of the Parish papers ? Was that omission consistent with accuracy, 
fairness, a desire of giving correct information, and of having an im- 
partial and just decision by the public concerning the controversy 1 
Is not the charge above made by " the church" without foundation 
and deceptive 1 

Soon after the Parish meeting of 7th Jan. the Clerk of the Parish 
transmitted to Dr. Holmes a copy of record of the votes passed at said 
meeting ; to which he afterwards made the following reply : 
To the First Parish in Cambridge, 

The Parish Clerk, some time since, gave me a copy of certain votes passed at a 
parish meeting on the 7th of January. That meeting having been dissolved, and no 
persons appearing to be authorized, either to confer with me on the subjects voted 
upon, or to receive any communication from me, I have been at a loss to know 
when, or by whom, to return you an answer. This is written, that, when the proper 
time and opportunity shall occur, it may be communicated to you. 

Upon the Vote, requesting me " to exchange a reasonable proportion of the time 
with such respectable clergymen of the liberal denomination, as are now pastors of 
the religious societies with which the religious society in this parish has been associ- 
ated" — I would respectfully observe to you, that a similar request was made to me, 
some time since, by certain memorialists, to whom I gave what I thought should be 
regarded as a clear and satisfactory answer. Another memorial, however, was pre- 
sented to me, repeating the same request, but carried to a greater extent, at least, 
more explicitly declaring a desire to have doctrines, on important subjects, at variance 
with, and opposed to the doctrines held and preached by your present pastor and his 
predecessors, introduced into our pulpit by ministers of a different denomination. 
This second memorial was also answered. In both were assigned reasons 
against the measure, derived from a sense of personal responsibility, ministerial con- 
sistency, and pastoral fidelity, and from a regard to all the dearest and best interests 
of the Church and Society. 

Understanding that the first memorial was read in the parish meeting, but neither 
of my answers, and believing that the Parish, as such, have not known my views of 
the subject: I respectfully refer you to the answer I have already given, a copy of 
which, if not furnished you by the memorialists, will be promptly furnished by my- 
self. In the meantime, I have availed myself of the late recurrence of the anniver- 
sary of my installation — an anniversary which I have uniformly observed in a similar 
manner — to present to the people of my pastoral charge, and to myself, such truths 
and duties as I believed might be for our mutual improvement. On this occasion, I 
felt it incumbent upon me to let the whole assembly of worshippers know — what 
many of them might not otherwise have known — what were the principles upon 
which this church was originally founded, and what were the principles of its minis- 
ters, during the long succession of nearly two hundred years. The original principles 
of the church, I endeavored to show, from authentic sources of evidence, have 
been maintained here with remarkable uniformity during the whole period, inclusive 
of the thirty six years of my own ministry. 

The reasons for not departing from our principles, or introducing into the ministra- 
tions of the sanctuary the principles of any denomination of ministers, known and 
avowed to be very different from, and opposed to our own, may be seen in the papers 
to which I have referred you. To those papers I ask your serious and candid atten- 
tion, in the persuasion, that, whether you consider the reasons, there offered, which 
respect my pastoral duties and rights of conscience, or those which respect your best 
interests as a church and society, you will allow them to be sufficient to justify me 
in declining to accede to a proposal, which, in my apprehension, and in the judgment 
of a large and respectable part of the Parish, interferes with those duties, and rights, 
and interests. 



21 



Upon the Vote, requesting me 61 to reject Dr. Watts' Psalms and Hymns, now 
used, and to substitute therefor, and to use, the Collection of Psalms and Hymns, 
now used in the Chapel of Harvard University," I would observe, that the rejection 
of a version so highly approved in most of our churches, and so deliberately and 
harmoniously introduced into our own, and the introduction of a collection, unknown 
to a great part of the church and society, as well as to the pastor, without a reason 
assigned for the change, would, I apprehend, be irregular, unprecedented, and unjus- 
tifiable. The version now used, was introduced some years since, by the concur- 
rence of the church and society and the pastor. Without such concurrence, and 
especially in opposition to the declared opinion and wishes of a large and respectable 
part of the church and parish, neither my judgment nor my conscience will allow me 
to reject the present version for another. Yours respectfully, 

Cambridge 1th February, 1828. A. HOLMES. 

COPT FROM THE RECORDS OF PARISH MEETING, MARCH '20. 1S28. 

At a legal meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the First Parish in 
the town of Cambridge, qualified to vote in Parish affairs, held on the twentieth day 
of March in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, 

"A communication from Rev. Dr. Holmes, pastor of the Parish, in relation to certain 
votes passed by the Parish on the seventh day of January last, is read, and ordered to 
be placed on the files of the parish papers. 

'•" The Correspondence between Rev. Dr. Holmes and sundiy of his parishioners in 
relation to ministerial exchanges, is read, whereupon it is voted, that the same, or 
attested copies thereof, be placed on the files of the parish papers." 

A copy from the Records of the First Parish in Cambridge, 

Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

If" the Church,''" as they call themselves, were desirous of having 
the controversy between the Parish and Dr. Holmes correctly under- 
stood, fully considered, and justly decided, by the enlightened and 
impartial, why did they omit to state the important facts above men- 
tioned, proved by the record of the Parish meeting, March 20th 1828, 
that the communication and the correspondence therein mentioned 
were then read, and, by vote, ordered to be placed on the files of the 
Parish papers ? Could such an omission originate from mistake % If 
it did not, it must throw a just suspicion upon the whole of said "Ac- 
count.''' If the omission arose from mistake, no dependence can safely 
be placed on the accuracy of the -Account," or of the information 
conveyed by it. Such an omission demonstrates, that the pamphlet in 
which it occurs, will produce error and a false opinion in the communi- 
ty, unless the readers of it look to other sources for accurate and full 
information. Were the majority unwilling to hear Dr. Holmes' com- 
munications to them ? Did they refuse to hear them ? 

A petition, dated March 22d. 1628, signed by seventy-nine of the 
legal voters of the First Parish in Cambridge, to call a meeting of said 
Parish for the purposes therein expressed, having been received by the 
Parish Committee, a warrant was duly issued for such meeting on the 
5th of April,. 1528. 

PARISH MEETING, APRIL 5, 1828. 

At a meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the First Parish in the town 
of Cambridge in the county of Middlesex, qualified to vote in parish affairs, on Satur- 
day, the fifth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
twenty eight. 

Abel Whitney is unanimously elected Moderator of said meeting. 

A Remonstrance against the objects of the meeting, signed by William Hliliard, 
Esq. and others, is read. 

Voted, That this Parish do request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor of said Parish, 
to consent to the election and settlement by said Parish, of such Colleague, as shall 
be satisfactory to said Parish, to co-operate with him in the performance of the duties 
of a public teacher of piety, religion, and morality in said Parish. 



22 



Voted, That this Parish do request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor of said Parish, 
to assent to an invitation by said Parish, to such clergymen as they may elect to in- 
vite to preach in the meeting-house of said Parish, on the Sabbath, not exceeding one 
half the time. 

Voted, That this Parish do request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the Pastor of said Parish, 
to assent to an invitation by said Parish to any clergymen, whom they may elect to 
invite to deliver lectures in the pulpit of the meeting-house in said Parish, at such 
times as the said Parish may appoint. 

Voted, That a committee of six be chosen by ballot, to present to the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes a copy of record of the doings of said meeting and to request his answer 
thereto, with power to treat with him on any incidental questions which may arise. 
The following gentlemen were elected said committee, viz. 

Messrs. Abraham Hilliard, 
Joseph Holmes, 
Abel Whitney, 
William J. Whipple, 
Francis Dana, 
Sylvanus Plympton. 

Voted, That this committee be authorized to receive the answer of the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes to the proceedings of said meeting, and to communicate the same to the 
Parish in such manner as they may think proper. 
Voted, That this meeting be dissolved. 

A true record, Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

A true copy from the Records of said Parish, 

Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

The following is the remonstrance referred to in the foregoing rec- 
ord, viz : 

To the Inhabitants of the First Parish in Cambridge, in Parish Meeting assem- 
bled, on the fifth day of April, A. D. 1828. 

The undersigned, inhabitants of, and legal voters in said Parish, respectfully repre- 
sent, that they have seen with no small degree of regret, and surprise, a notice to the 
members of the First Parish in Cambridge, to assemble this day, for the purpose of 
acting upon the following propositions : 

The second article is, to see if the Parish will, by vote, request the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, the pastor of said Parish, to consent to the election and settlement by said 
Parish, of such a Colleague, as shall be satisfactory to said Parish, to co-operate with 
him in the performance of the duties of a public teacher of piety, religion, and moral- 
ity in said Parish. 

3d. To see if the parish will vote to request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor of said 
Parish, to assent to an invitation by said Parish, to any clergyman, whom they may 
elect to invite to preach in the meeting-house of said Parish on the Sabbath, not ex- 
ceeding one half of the time. 

4th. To see if the said Parish will vote to request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor 
of said Parish, to assent to an invitation, by said Parish, to any clergyman, whom 
they may elect to invite, to deliver lectures in the pulpit of the meeting-house of 
said Parish, at such times as said Parish may appoint. 

These propositions, the undersigned cannot but consider as extremely novel, if 
not wholly unprecedented ; and for reasons, hereafter to be mentioned, do earnestly 
remonstrate against their adoption : 

1. We are not persuaded that the constitution or laws of this Commonwealth author- 
ize towns or parishes to levy and collect a tax for the support of more than one 
religious teacher. It will not be pretended that a Parish or religious society can be 
compelled to support two competent teachers ; and we see no reason to doubt, that 
all beyond what the constitution enjoins, must be the result of a voluntary agree- 
ment of the members of the society, and obligatory upon those only, who consent 
to it. We question, therefore, the authority of the Parish to assess taxes for the sup- 
port of two pastors, or ministers. 

2. If it were competent for parishes to settle two teachers of piety, religion, and 
morality, and assess taxes for their support, the constitution gives expressly to every 
inhabitant, within the limits of the town, or society, a right to appropriate his tax to 



23 



which of the two teachers he chooses, a state of things poorly calculated to promote 
peace in a society, and eminently calculated to promote contention and alienation. 

3. If it be doubtful, whether towns and parishes can compel the support of more 
than one teacher, it is in our apprehension clear, that no tax can be laid and collected 
for the support of a colleague pastor of another denomination : and should the candi- 
date elected by a majority of the society correspond in sentiment, avowed by a ma- 
jority of this society in their late memorial, he would, in our opinion, in all respects, 
be a minister of another denomination. 

4. We regard the settlement of a colleague pastor as unnecessary. It does not 
appear, that either from age, weakness of body, or imbecility of mind, the present 
incumbent is unable to fulfil the conditions of the contract originally entered into 
with the Parish, and the fulfilling every appropriate duty of his station. On the con- 
trary, it cannot be denied, that for a considerable time past, he has been uncommonly 
devoted in supplying personally his own pulpit, as well as in the discharge of all his 
duties as a minister. It is equally manifest, that no change has taken place in the 
Parish, which does not rather diminish, than increase the labors of the pastor; with 
the exception of some demands made of late by the moral and religious exigencies of 
the people, which have been cheerfully attended to in the performance of consider- 
able extra service. 

In the view of these facts, and of the avowed opinions of those, who make this 
proposal, your remonstrants can perceive no cause for the proposition of settling a 
colleague with Dr. Holmes, which does not originate in hostility to the doctrines, 
which have been taught by him from the beginning ; and which has for its object 
the settlement of one of opposite opinions. In this view of the case, the settlement 
of a colleague could not fail to be attended with great difficulties, both to the pastor, 
and to the society. For, although the article in the warrant does not expressly state 
the fact, yet it may be fairly inferred from past proceedings, that such a colleague as 
the parish would elect, would not be one, who would co-operate with the present 
rightful incumbent, but that there would exist such a diversity of views between the 
pastors, and their respective adherents, as might be expected to produce any results, 
rather than those of peace and edification. Besides, a considerable number of this 
church and society cherish a strong attachment to Dr. Holmes, not only for his pri- 
vate and public worth, but also, as according with him in our doctrinal views, as con- 
sonant with reason, and the word of God. And moreover, we are fully satisfied of his 
ability and inclination to discharge, all the duties incumbent upon him, as a moral and 
religious teacher. Under these circumstances, your remonstrants cannot forbear 
quoting the sentiments expressed in the last memorial presented to Dr. Holmes, 
" that great and numerous disadvantages must result in a moral and religious view, 
from a decided difference and constant conflict of theory between a preacher and his 
hearers. When parishioners assemble for public worship, if there is a great conflict 
of principle between them and the preacher, devotion is prevented or interrupted, 
and their minds are less engaged in devotional exercises, than in efforts to support 
their own theories, and to disprove those, which they hear from the pulpit. If the 
preacher and his hearers are much opposed to each other in their theology, they can- 
not harmonize with him in public worship, while he is constantly delivering and la- 
boring to establish opinions, which they fully believe to be contradictory to reason, 
or revelation, or to one another." If this principle operates upon the minds of the 
hearers with so much force, what must the effect be upon the mind of the moral and 
religious teacher, under these circumstances ? A pastor of a church and society, 
who has been laboring for nearly forty years, inculcating what he believes to be the 
truth, and perfectly consistent with both " reason and scripture," co-operating with 
one, who attempts to disprove the doctrines, to the exposition of what he thinks as 
inconsistent both with reason and scripture. The proposition, upon the very face of 
it, involves a request so unreasonable, as cannot fail to be apparent to every reflect- 
ing mind. 

Your remonstrants object to the proposition, as involving an unnecessary expense 
upon the parish in the support of two teachers, while a contract exists with one, who 
is both able and willing to fulfil the contract on his part, by the faithful discharge of 
all his duties. Were the fact otherwise, a proposal to afford him assistance would be 
reasonable and fitting. But even in this case, propriety would seem to demand that 
he should be consulted with, in regard to the person introduced as a fellow-laborer, 
with whom he is to act in so peculiar and intimate a relation. But in the present 
instance, he is indirectly, yet plainly told, that he is to have no voice in what so 
nearly concerns him. To a pastor, whose day of labor was nearly closed, such a 



24 



course would indeed be painful. What then must it be to one, fully competent to 
his duties, in the full vigor of his mind, to have thus thrust into his vineyard, in the 
midst of his labors, one, whose views and feelings would, in all probability, be di- 
rectly opposed to his own. 

As the third proposition is, in its nature and object, similar to the second, we would 
only remark, that we regard the proposal to Dr. Holmes, to consent that the Par- 
ish should be permitted to supply his pulpit, half the time, at their own discretion, 
implying, as it obviously does, a supply also by ministers of sentiments, hostile to his 
own, appears to us, to be the greatest indignity ever known to be offered to an aged and 
venerable minister of Christ, who, for almost forty years, has done nothing, but to in- 
crease his claims upon his people to affectionate and respectful treatment. And we trust 
that the fair fame of this parish may not be handed down, by our own act, to our pos- 
terity, and to other generations, with such a blot upon it. The request is in direct 
violation of the immemorial rights of a minister in his own Parish ; and in principle, 
cannot easily be distinguished from the provision made by law, for putting conserva- 
tors over those, who, by reason of incompetency, are unable to manage their own 
affairs; the Parish, in the present case, kindly offering to perform the duties of that 
office over Dr. Holmes. Nothing, we are persuaded, can exempt this society from 
deep disgrace, in making such a proposal to one, who was venerated and loved by 
our fathers, and under whose paternal care the present generation has risen up ; and 
who has done nothing to provoke such treatment, which is not involved in the ful- 
filment of his contract with the Parish, and of his ordination vows; and we cannot 
believe, that this Parish will consent to make to Dr. Holmes a request, so utterly 
unworthy of the respect, which they owe to themselves and to him. 

Your remonstrants are clearly of the opinion, that such a course of procedure 
toward Dr. Holmes, as is proposed, would be a violation of the contract, originally 
entered into with him, by this parish. Would Dr. Holmes have consented to settle 
upon such terms ? And can such conditions be forced upon him, now in the wane 
of life, without a violation of the contract ? If Dr. Holmes had changed his doctrinal 
opinions, the courts have decided, that it would be a valid cause of his dismission. He 
could not, on his part, violate his contract, and hold the society to its obligation. But 
are not the obligations between a pastor and his Parish reciprocal ? Can they, at 
will, dismiss him, or modify the contract, on the plea, that they have changed their 
doctrinal opinions, and wish him to give place to others, with whom they are better 
pleased ? In such cases, the rights of conscience can never be urged, as authorizing 
a violation of contracts, rendered desirable by a change of sentiment in one of the 
parties. It is well known also, that there were three parties concerned in the settle- 
ment of Dr. Holmes, trfe Church, the Parish, and the Incumbent; and whatever right 
the society might have had to settle a teacher by its own inclusive authority, it was 
at liberty to waive, and did waive, the exercise of it ; and having done so, and con- 
sented to a contract voluntarily, in which two other parties are concerned, it is not 
competent to the Parish to modify, or vacate their own contracts. 

Upon the proposal to Dr. Holmes to consent to the invitation by the Parish, of 
other ministers to lecture in his pulpit, your remonstrants would merely observe, that 
it comes to us a little out of the usual order of things. At a former Parish meet- 
ing, before Dr. Holmes' views were properly before the Parish, it was determined, 
that the Parish would invite ministers to deliver lectures in his pulpit, and a commit- 
tee was also chosen to cany the measure into effect, wholly independent of Dr. 
Holmes, and without inquiring, what might be his opinions and feelings upon the sub- 
ject. It now appears, that what the committee were fully authorized to do, without the 
concurrence of the pastor, has been deferred for the purpose of obtaining his assent, 
or, in other words, that the Parish chose to act without consulting him, before his 
opinion regularly came before them ; now, that they have ascertained, that he can- 
not consistently with a good conscience, give his assent, they see fit to make the 
request. To say the least, this order of procedure seems somewhat strange ; and 
were it not, that much time has elapsed, and the subject occupied the minds of many 
to such an extent, we should be compelled, in all fairness, to conclude, that it was 
from want of sufficient consideration. 

We need make no remarks upon the 5th and 6th Articles in the Warrant, as our 
objections to them are included in those, which precede. 

In view of the whole subject, considering the unparalleled nature of the proposi- 
tions, now presented for adoption, the complete prostration of the former usages of 
this church and society in the election and settlement of a pastor or a of colleague ; the 
ability of the present incumbent to discharge his duties ; and the necessary increased 



25 



expense to the Parish, hy adopting the proposed measures, we do hereby solemnly 
enter our objections thereto. 

Cambridge, April 5, 1823. Signed by William Hilliard and 41 others. 

A copy, Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of the First Parish in Cambridge. 

Soon after the last mentioned parish meeting, the committee ap- 
pointed by the same presented to Dr. Holmes a copy of the record of 
the doings at said meeting, and subsequently received from him the 
following answer. 

To the First Parish in Cambridge. 

Had the grounds and reasons of your vote, to request me to consent to your 
election and settlement of a colleague, been stated to me, I might have been en- 
abled to form a more competent judgment respecting my present duty. The 
request, as it is presented to me, unsupported by any assigned reason, leaves me 
to the consideration of it with no other light than what is derived from preced- 
ing transactions. In those transactions there is no allusion whatever to the pres- 
ent proposal, which, made as it is without consultation or conference with your 
pastor, subjects him to the necessity — unprecedented, it is believed, in a case of 
such solemn and mutual concern — of judging and answering for himself alone. 
But he has devoutly and importunately sought divine light and guidance ; and it 
will be his aim to give an answer which his own conscience will approve, and 
which, he trusts, will commend itself to every man's conscience in the sight of 
God. 

The design of the introduction of a colleague, so far as I can perceive, must 
be, either to co-operate with your present pastor, in the maintenance of the same 
religious principles which he has maintained during his whole ministry ; or, to 
attempt to co-operate with him in the maintenance of different principles, and a 
different course of ministrations. If the des'gn were, to have an harmonious 
co-operation, such as would " become the gospel of Christ," and tend, with a 
divine blessing, to promote truth and piety, unity and peace ; your pastor 
might reasonably have expected the expression of such a design, in which his 
feelings, his carec, and his labors, must be intimately and deeply concerned. 
If the design were, to have a colleague to co-operate with him in the main- 
tenance, of such religious principles, as neither this church nor any of its minis- 
ters have ever maintained — a co-operation, which, instead of being harmonious, 
would be necessarily discordant — your pastor might still have justly expected to 
be made acquainted with that design. Were an harmonious co-operation intend- 
ed, had the necessity or expediency of settling a colleague been made to appear, 
your pastor might have been able to give an answer to mutual satisfaction ; on 
the contrary supposition, neither his judgment nor his conscience would allow 
him to consent to a measure, alike hostile to his own peace and usefulness, and, 
as he solemnly believes, to all your best interests for this world and the next. 

Without the knowledge of the grounds and reasons of the request, and in op- 
position to the declared judgment and wishes of a large and respectable propor- 
tion of my parishioners, I cannot give my consent to the election and settlement 
of a colleague. Nor can I, for the same reasons, give my assent to a division 
of the services of the Sabbath with ministers, whom 1 may neither know nor 
approve. 

An arrangement having been already made, and a committee authorized, to 
invite clergymen to deliver lectures in our meeting-house, without consultation 
or conference with your pastor, he is precluded from giving or withholding his 
assent to a measure, which would be discountenanced by all the courtesies of 
society, and which is at variance with all the established usages of Christian 
churches and people. 

With due respect and regard, 

A. HOLMES, Pastor. 

Cambridge, llth April, 1828. 

To Abraham Hilliard, Esq. and the other 
members of the Committee, authorized 
to receive this Answer. 



4 



26 



The Parish Committee, on the written application of seventy-six 
voters of the Parish, under date ot April 21, 1828, issued their war- 
rant for a meeting on the 17th of May following, for the purposes indi- 
cated by the votes passed at that meeting. 

Parish Meeting, May 17, 1828. 

At a legal meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the 
First Parish in the town of Cambridge in the County of Middlesex 
and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, qualified to vote in Parish 
affairs, held at the Court-house in said Parish, on Saturday, the seven- 
teenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
dred and twenty-eight, 

Abel Whitney is unanimously elected Moderator of said meeting. 

The petition to the Parish Committee for calling this meeting is 
read. 

A communication from the Rev. Dr. Holmes, in relation to the 
votes of said Parish on the fifth of April last past, is read, and ordered 
to be placed on the files of the Parish papers.* 

A Remonstrance signed *by William Hilliard, Esq. and others, 
against the objects and proceedings of this meeting, being offered, and 
heard, it is voted that the same be placed upon the files of the Parish 
papers. 

" Voted, That this Parish do request the Rev. Dr. Holmes to discontinue the 
public evening lectures in the meeting-house of said Parish, and in said Parish, 
by clergymen of the Calvinistic denomination. In which vote, the meeting 
being polled, it is found that fifty persons voted in the affirmative, and thirteen 
persons in the negative. 

" Voted, That this parish do request the Rev. Dr. Holmes to discontinue his 
exchanges with clergymen of the Calvinistic denomination. 

" Voted, That this Parish do request the Rev. Dr. Holmes, in case he shall not 
comply with the requests in the preceding votes, to ask a dismissal from his 
office of Pastor of said Parish. 

" Voted, That Abraham Hilliard, Joseph Holmes, Abel Whitney, William J. 
Whipple, Francis Dana, and Sylvanus Plympion, be a committee to receive the 
Answer of the Rev. Dr. Holmes to the proceedings of this meeting, with author- 
ity to confer with him, should he desire such conference, in relation to the sub- 
ject matter of the preceding votes and the acts of the Parish in reference to the 
same. 

" Voted, That this meeting be dissolved." 

A true record. Attest. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy from the records of the First Parish 
in Cambridge. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, Clerk of said Parish. 

The following is the Remonstrance above referred to. 

To the Inhabitants of the First Parish in Cambridge, in Parish Meeting assem- 
bled, on the seventeenth day of May, A. D. 1828. 

The undersigned inhabitants of, and legal voters in Parish meetings, respect- 
fully represent, 

That by the legal authority of said Parish, they are again called together, to 
deliberate and act upon a subject, involving questions and principles, deeply 



* See preceding page. 



2? 



interesting, not only to themselves, but also as having an important bearing 
upon the Christian community at large. As from a sense of duty, they have 
been led heretofore to remonstrate against the proceedings of the Parish, in 
relation to its connexion with Dr. Holmes, as their pastor, in the several propo- 
sitions submitted to him, so again, from a solemn sense of duty, they would 
remonstrate against the several proposals, embraced in the warrant for calling 
this meeting. 

The undersigned having already expressed their opinions at large, with regard 
to most of the subjects, upon which they are now called to act, think it wholly 
unnecessary to take up the time of the meeting, by fully setting forth their rea- 
sons, for again remonstrating; because, although they consider the proposed 
measures to differ in degree, yet they hold them to be nearly the same in prin- 
ciple, with those heretofore ^dopted by the Parish, and for an opposition to 
which, they have, more than once, set forth their reasons at large. From a 
serious review of their opinions thus expressed, they have found no good and 
sufficient reasons for a dissent. They would remark, however, upon the subject 
of exchanges, that the ancient and universal usage among the clergy, gives to a 
pastor the same right to exchange with his brethren, as if it had been provided 
for in the articles of his settlement; and therefore, that if a clergyman has a 
right to preach those sentiments, which he was known to hold at the time of 
his settlement, he has a right also, at times, to maintain ministerial intercourse 
with those who hold essentially the same sentiments with himself. The attempt 
to deprive him of this privilege, could only be equalled by a request, that he 
should preach, not what he might believe, but what his Parish might see fit to 
dictate to him. These remarks apply not only to so much of the warrant, as 
relates to exchanges for the regular Sabbath exercises, but also to that part of it, 
which relates to occasional lectures ; for, from the manner in which the warrant 
is worded, your remonstrants must consider the objections to those services, 
as going solely to the doctrinal character of those who officiate ; and did not 
the words themselves imply this, they should feel bound to consider it the sole 
intention of the request. For your remonstrants could not consider it as in- 
tended to go to prohibit a religious exercise of this nature, as the parish have 
more than once expressed their sense of the importance of this extra service, 
by requesting Dr. Holmes to consent to the admission of such clergymen, as the 
Parish should choose, for this express purpose. A committee was also appointed 
to invite neighbouring clergymen to perform such services, which committee is 
still in existence, with power to act. 

An attempt to prohibit a number of individuals within the Parish assembling 
with their pastor, and that too, without encroaching upon the legal rights of the 
Parish at all, for the purpose of attending upon a course of moral and religious 
instruction, derived from the word of God, appears to your remonstrants an 
alarming stretch of power in a majority of uplifted hands over the minority, 
and as without a parallel in these days of boasted religious light and freedom. 
An attempt at control, so novel in our land, we trust never will be countenanced 
by this meeting. Amid all the excitement of the present moment, we cannot 
but cherish the hope, that there is still too much good feeling to support a 
measure, which, at some future period, would be remembered with regret. 

With regard to the subject of the 5th article in the warrant, we scarcely know 
how to express our feelings. After the repeated requests which have been made 
to the pastor, all of which involve the same principle, and which was rejected, 
in answer to the first memorial presented to him, we are constrained to con- 
sider the whole subject-matter of the warrant to turn upon this article. Can it, 
for one moment, be supposed, that any upright and independent man would 
consent to cut himself off from all official communion with those of his clerical 
brethren, who were of the same heart and faith with himself in regard to the 
word of God ? The man who would do this, would be deservedly left alone, the 
pity of those who had been his friends, and the scorn of those who had brought 
him to a stale of subjection, and a violation of his better judgment ; he would 
be left in his weakness, and ashamed to look, where the deserted and oppressed 
can alone look for comfort and support. We are therefore compelled to regard 
the whole subject now before the parish, as reduced to a single point, — a request 
to Dr. Holmes to leave his Parish. If this request rests upon the rejection of the 
several propositions before made, your remonstrants, in conformity to what 



28 



they have already expressed, do repeat their full conviction, that from the nature 
and tendency of the proposals themselves, and from all the circumstances con- 
nected with them, the rejection was not only anticipated, but is fully approved. 
If any thing is alleged, affecting in any way the character of our pastor, they 
have yet to learn its existence, and upon what it is founded. If this request, 
however, is the result of an existing and growing opposition to the doctrines 
and duties uniformly inculcated by our pastor, the undersigned cannot but ex- 
press their decided approbation of both. 

The ties of pastor and people, so holy to religious minds, doubly sanctified as 
they are to many of us, by the holy rites of religion, by the sacred and mourn- 
ful services of the sick bed, and over those we have borne to the grave — these 
seem drawn closer and closer round our hearts, as the thoughts of a separation 
come over us. But it is not ourselves alone, whom we consider at such a time. 
We are bound, not only as Christians, but as men, to regard those whose feelings 
in all these relations, are often deeper, more lasting, and more tender than our 
own. The feelings of religious females toward a faithful pastor deserve, we had 
almost said, our reverence ; and that man, who w T ounds them lightly, not only 
wrongs a fellow creature, but injures one who has no protection to these feelings, 
but in his kindness, honor, and justice. We also apprehend, that were the fe- 
males of this Parish allowed to come here and speak, a majority of them would 
entreat you to forbear; and we would hope, that we shall not be regardless of 
their feelings, because they are not allowed the poor privilege of begging you to 
consider them. 

Our long, familiar, and harmonious intercourse with our pastor ; the remem- 
brance of his generosily, and care, and kind manners towards the poor; the 
many times we have witnessed how affectionate is his heart, and the emotion he 
has discovered, when (rom the pulpit, which he has so long filled, or when in 
private, he has spoken of his connexions with his Parish ; — these things make us 
feel most of all for him. And why all this? Because he cannot, by himself, 
or through others, consent to preach what he fully believes to be error, and that 
error of no small evil tendency ; or because he will not (as we hope and trust 
he will not) turn his batk upon those, who, with him, preach " Christ and him 
crucified ; " or, because he may think something due to a majority of the church, 
who hold the truth with him ; and let us add, perhaps a majority of the Parish, 
if both sexes may be included ? Let us not attempt to drive from us a man, by 
urging upon him a course of measures, which, should he submit to them, would 
render him a stranger among his brethren, not satisfy those who make the de- 
mand, and would leave him dishonored in his own eyes and in theirs. From 
the foregoing considerations, the undersigned pray that all farther proceedings 
may be stayed, and commend their pastor, and themselves, to thai God, who con- 
trols all human events to the ultimate promotion of his glory, and the safely of 
his church. 

Signed by William Hilliard and 42 others. 

Cambridge, May \hth, 1828.. 

In relation to the " Remonstrance, signed by William Hilliard and 
others, against the objects and proceedings " of the Parish, at the 
meeting thereof May 17th, 1828, after stating the votes, passed at 
that meeting, " the church," as they call themselves, on p. 16 of their 
" Account," &c. select from that Remonstrance, some of the rea- 
sons therein alleged, to wit: 

" Because," as the remonstrants say, " an attempt to prohibit a number of 
individuals, within the Parish, assembling with their pastor, (and that, too, with- 
out encroaching upon the legal rights of the Parish at all,) for the purpose of 
attending upon a course of moral and religious instruction, derived from the 
word of God, appears to your remonstrants an alarming stretch of power in a 
majority of uplifted hands against the minority." 

" Because an attempt, as by the 3d article, to control the minister's right of 
exchanges with clergymen of his own sentiments, ' could only be equalled by 
a request, that he should preach, not what he might believe, but what his Parish 
might see fit to dictate to him.' " 



29 



" The sabbath evening meetings alone were holden in the house belonging to 
the Parish, and these in amount not oftener than once a fortnight." 

It will probably be admitted, that the majority of the parishioners, 
at the time of the above-mentioned meeting, had, and now have, 
not only legal, but moral and religious rights. They have a right 
to profess, advocate, and to support, by all proper and reasonable 
means, the principles which they sincerely believe to be derived from 
reason and " the word of God." Those principles, while they con- 
scientiously believe them to be strictly conformable to enlightened 
reason and divine revelation, it is both their right and their duty to 
defend, in their religious society, against the attacks of error, bigotry, 
and superstition, and against all attempts to alter them by proselyt- 
ing efforts, however those principles may differ from the distinguishing 
Calvinistic tenets of the remonstrants. Each individual of the ma- 
jority has an interest of immense value in those principles ; in the 
cultivation, defence, and propagation of them, and while they ap- 
pear to his understanding as sacred, he feels an ardent desire of 
recommending them to others, and has a right to protect them against 
the efforts used by others to cloud and degrade them by error, to 
bring them into contempt, or expose them to detestation, by misre- 
presentation, by sophistry, and numerous other improper means. 
Every one considers it his interest, his right, and his duty, to defend 
and preserve the moral and religious principles of the Parish, or 
religious society, to which he belongs. To have those principles cor- 
rupted, or abandoned, must appear to him a great evil, in a moral and 
religious view ; and if he can, in the fair exercise of his rights, ef- 
fectually guard against it, it is his indispensable duty to do it. What 
was the above-mentioned " course of moral and religious instruction I" 
It consisted, principally, if not entirely, of sermons and lectures by 
Calvinists, invited here by the minority, or Dr. Holmes, or both, from 
other Parishes and religious societies, contrary to all former usage in 
the Parish, and to the principles, taste, and wishes of the majority, 
for the purpose of propagating the tenets of Calvinism in the Parish, 
of proselyting members of the majority to those tenets, and of sup- 
porting Dr. Holmes in his exclusive practice, which is in perfect 
opposition to his own usage, for more than thirty years, and to that of 
his predecessors. Dr. Holmes, at the evening lectures, was generally a 
humble auditor, and seldom, if ever, preached. Those Calvinists pro- 
nounced, and endeavoured to prove, the principles of the majority to be 
false, dangerous, and pernicious ; to convince their auditors, that the 
distinguishing theories of Calvinism were essential to salvation ; that 
whoever retained, or adopted the principles of the majority, must do it 
at his everlasting peril ; that those principles are " moral desolation ; " 
that Dr. Holmes' religious theories are right, and his cause that of 
heaven ; and severely censured and condemned not only the princi- 
ples, but the conduct of the majority^ Dr. Holmes confined his ex- 
changes to such Calvinists, contrary to the ancient usage, in relation 
to exchanges, at the time of his installation, to his own practice, con- 
tinued more than thirty years, and to the religious principles of a 
great majority of his parishioners. Under these circumstances, it 
was both the right and the duty of the majority to request Dr. Holmes 



30 



to discontinue said evening lectures by Calvinists, and exchanges with 
them ; and his refusal to do it was a breach of his duty to the Parish, 
and a violation of the rights of the majority ; and if Dr. Holmes could 
not, or rather would not, comply with that request, he was no longer 
fit to be the pastor of the Parish, and ought to have asked a dis- 
mission from his pastoral office. The majority never requested Dr. 
Holmes to preach what he disbelieved ; but only to exchange with 
ministers, such as he uniformly exchanged with before, who preach 
what the majority believe. Let any impartial mind decide, whether 
it is true, that what the majority did " could only be equalled by a 
request that he (Dr. Holmes) should preach, not what he might believe, 
but what his Parish might see fit to dictate to him." Is not the 
conscience of each parishioner as sacred as that of the minister ? 
Does the act of ordaining a minister make his conscience the only 
operative one in the Parish, and take from each parishioner the rights 
of conscience he had before ? 

The votes of the Parish were communicated to Dr. Holmes on the 
19th of May, 1828, by the Parish Clerk, who, on the 31st of the same 
month, received the following 

Reply of Dr. Holmes. 

To the First Parish in Cambridge. 

The Parish Clerk has communicated to me your votes, requesting me " to dis- 
continue the public exercise of evening lectures in the meeting-house, and in the 
Parish, by men of the Calvinistic denomination ; and to discontinue my ex- 
changes with clergymen of the Calvinistic denomination." 

Calvinistic^ like many other terms by which Christians of different religious 
principles are meant to be distinguished, is often very erroneously and unjustly 
applied to ministers and churches. Supposing you to mean by " Calvinistic " 
that denomination of Christians who hold to the great principles of the Protestant 
Reformation — not in every particular, perhaps, as they were held by that emi- 
nent reformer " whose praise is in all the churches," but coinciding with him 
generally, as with the other principal reformers, in the reception of doctrines 
which they believe to be scriptural and rational ; there appears no reason why 
men of this denomination should be excluded from us. 

Christians of that denomination profess the same general principles of religion 
which have been professed by the purest churches in Christendom — I mean the 
Reformed Churches of Holland, of Switzerland, of Geneva, the Church of Eng- 
land, the Church of Scotland, and the first Churches of New-England. How a 
minister, holding those principles, and uniformly maintaining them in a long 
ministry, in connexion with a church originally formed and settled upon those 
very principles, and never professedly nor actually renouncing them, can con- 
sistently, or honestly, withhold an exchange of stated or occasional services with 
ministers of that denomination, I cannot perceive. 

The general principles professed by the reformed churches, are the very prin- 
ciples upon which the First Church in Cambridge was originally formed and 
settled, and which neither this church nor its ministers have renounced, during 
the long period of nearly two hundred years. Were I to discontinue my exchanges 
with ministers of these principles, or to cease to avail myself of their occasional 
services, at suitable times and places, as the state and circumstances of the 
church and people might appear to require ; I should act in opposition to my 
judgment and conscience, and could not feel myself justifiable in the sight of 
God or man. After the assurance which 1 had received from the memorialists, 
that they " should be most unwilling to interfere with my convictions of duty, 
or rights of conscience," it could not reasonably have been expected that I 
should so soon afterward be presented with requests, which are a direct and 
palpable interference with both. 



31 



As the last vote, making a still farther request, rises out of the two previous 
votes, and has a sole reference to the answer that should be given to the requests 
there made ; and those votes being grounded on principles which, I apprehend, 
must appear to every unprejudiced mind to be as unreasonable as they are un- 
precedented ; — allow me to say, it could hardly have been expected by those 
making the request, that it should be complied with. A compliance with this 
request, upon such principles, would, in my view, be not indefensible merely, 
but highly culpable. It would be a desertion of those of the society, who 
accord with me and with our predecessors of this church and Parish in religious 
principles, and who have solemnly remonstrated against the procedure. It 
would be a desertion of my divine Master; and I could not answer to HIM for 
such a direliction, for " I am under the law to Christ." It would be a desertion 
of this beloved church which has been committed to my pastoral care : and I 
could not answer for such a direliction, either to the church, or to ' : the shep- 
herd and bishop of our souls." It would be a baneful precedent, tending to un- 
settle the rights, and to disturb the order, of churches and Parishes. It would 
tend to discourage young men of talents and piety from entering into the Chris- 
tian ministry, and thus injuriously affect the best interests of the civil and Chris- 
tian community. It would serve to break down the institution of public instruc- 
tion and of united social worship, introduced by our wise and pious forefathers, 
and most successfully maintained in New-England to the present day. 

In this view of the subject, I am constrained to say, that a compliance with 
requests, inconsistent with my religious principles and ordination vows, and, in 
my apprehension, prejudicial to the ultimate good of the Parish itself, cannot 
reasonably be expected on your part, nor acceded to on my own. 

I am, yours respectfully, 

A. HOLMES. 

Cambridge, 31st May, 1828. 

After the receipt, by the committee of the above communication, and 
consultation with several Parishioners as to the expediency of calling 
a Parish meeting, it being deemed inconvenient and inexpedient to 
be done at this season of the year, a numerous meeting of the Par- 
ishioners was held for the purpose of hearing the said reply, who 
afterwards adopted and transmitted to Dr. Holmes the following 

Address of Eighty Parishioners. 
To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the First Church in Cambridge. 

The subscribers, who are parishioners and legal voters in the First Parish in 
Cambridge, have recently examined your answer to the last votes of the Parish, 
addressed to you, requesting you " to discontinue the public exercise of evening 
lectures in the meeting-house and in the Parish, by men of the Calvinistic de- 
nomination ; to discontinue your exchanges with clergymen of the Calvinistic 
denomination ; and, in case of your refusal to comply with those requests, to 
ask a dismissal from your office of pastor of said Parish." 

As it is not convenient to the parishioners to attend a Parish meeting at this 
season of the year, we think it expedient to express to you our objections to that 
answer, and the reasons of the dissatisfaction which it has excited in our minds. 
If it be practicable to obtain and secure our parochial rights and privileges, by 
patience and perseverance, in the use of petition, argument, and persuasion, we 
are desirous of avoiding the necessity of resorting to a legal tribunal for that 
purpose. It is, perhaps, important, that you should understand seasonably, that 
we consider the parochial rights, which we have heretofore claimed, of inesti- 
mable value ; that we have not abandoned them, nor despaired of regaining 
them ; and that we have firmly resolved to demand and pursue those rights, 
until we shall obtain the perfect and unmolested enjoyment of them. Your an- 
swer has no tendency to convince us, that there is any thing wrong in those 
votes, or in the principles on which they are founded ; but, on reflection, we 
approve both the votes and the principles, and are convinced, that your previous 
conduct rendered it not only proper but expedient to pass those votes. You, 
Sir, undoubtedly recollect the writings which we and the Parish addressed to 



32 



you, previous to the Parish meeting in which those votes were passed, and 
the principles, facts, and arguments contained in them, and we mention them 
here for the purpose of stating, that we yet fully approve those writings, and that 
no answer received from you, nor any remonstrance from the minority, your 
adherents, has in any degree tended to convince us, that those wiitings are, in any 
respect, erroneous, or that any part of- the substance of them requires alteration 
or amendment. On some future occasion, we shall probably exhibit to you the 
results of our examination of your answers, to which we have not replied, and 
of the remonstrances by your adherents, composed of the very small number of 
persons who constitute the minority in this Parish. 

In your answer to the abovementioned votes, you say, Sir, that " Calvinistic" 
is often very erroneously and unjustly applied to ministers and churches. You do 
not state in what such error and injustice consist, nor any instances of either of 
them, nor any evidence to prove a single case of an erroneous or unjust applica- 
tion of that term. It has become somewhat fashionable among Calvinists, when 
they have suspected that the epithet " Calvinistic" has excited prejudice against 
them, to complain loudly of its application to them: but those who have made 
such complaints, have generally demonstrated by their preaching, that there was 
neither error nor injustice in the application; that they retained the principles 
and spirit of Calvinism, and objected to that application only because they had 
become prudent, and were desirous of partially concealing and softening the harsh- 
er and more offensive parts of their system. Considering those votes, therefore, in- 
dependently of the communications previously made to you, there is no ambiguity 
in the word " Calvinistic," as used by the Parish. But, before those votes, you 
had been repeatedly informed, that we differed in our religious principles from 
you and your favorite preachers, and that we conscientiously objected to the 
theological theories of those whom you exclusively invited into our pulpit. 
Preceding trat.sactions, between you and the liberal part of the parishioners, 
had so fully made known to you our principles and wishes, and designated to 
you the class of preachers to whom we object, that you could not, had you been 
willing to understand, doubt the sense in which " Calvinistic " is used in those 
votes. You were not, therefore, under the necessity of making any supposition 
in relation to the meaning of that word ; but the supposition was made for the 
purpose of introducing a number of subjects, which we had heard from you much 
too often before ; —subjects which, notwithstanding your great partiality for 
them, have no connexion with the case, nor any adaptation to our religious prin- 
ciples, taste, or wishes. 

The abovementioned subjects are contained in the following part of your an- 
swer, to ivit, " Supposing you to mean by ' Calvinistic,' that denomination of 
Christians, who held the great principles of the Protestant Reformation, — not in 
every particular, perhaps, as they were held by that eminent reformer, 1 whose 
praise is in all the churches,' but coinciding with him generally, as with the other 
principal reformers, in the reception of doctrines, which they believe to be 
scriptural and rational ; there appears no reason why men of this denomination 
should be excluded from us. 

" Christians of that denomination profess the same general principles of reli- 
gion, which have been professed by the purest churches in Christendom. I mean 
the reformed churches of Holland, of Switzerland, of Geneva, the church of 
England, the .church of Scotland, and the first churches in New England." 

If the subjects which form the whole substance of the above cited part of your 
answer, had any intimate connexion with, or applicability to the questions, 
which have, for some months, been under discussion between you and this 
Parish, we should regret that you have introduced each one of them in the most 
indefinite manner, and have left us to conjecture how 7 you understand, and how 
you wish us to understand, each of those subjects. The questions naturally arise, 
from reading your answer, what were the great principles, and what the other 
principles of the Protestant reformation ? If Calvinists, according to your de- 
finition or description of them, do not hold those great principles, in every par- 
ticular, as they were held by that eminent reformer, which of those principles 
do they hold, and which do they reject ? What eminent reformer has ever ap- 
peared in the world, " whose praise is in all the churches r " What do you mean 
by " all the churches ? " Do you consider the churches mentioned by you as 
being all " the purest churches in Christendom?" What are the principles of 
the enumerated churches ? Have their principles always been substantially the 



38 



same, from the beginning of the reformation to the present day ? or have their 
principles often fluctuated and varied, in important particulars ? Have those 
churches harmonized with one another in their creeds and systems of theology, 
or have they differed in many leading principles ? What do you mean by the 
first churches of New England ? '' What were their religious principles ? Did 
they agree perfectly ? What makes it incumbent on us to ascertain their reli- 
gious principles, or to adopt them as the standard for our faith, or for the exercise 
of our reason, and for our interpretation of the Bible? If we had a right, or if it 
were our duty, to derive the prinicples of our religion from Calvinists, the history 
of the reformation, an eminent reformer, principal reformers, or from any or 
all of the churches mentioned by you, it would be impossible for us to derive 
any valuable information from your suggestion of the above subjects, before you 
shall have given them a more definite and luminous form. 

The introduction of the aforesaid subjects into your answer necessarily im- 
plies, that you consider them materials proper for deciding theological contro- 
versies, and disputes concerning ecclesiastical rights between a Parish and their 
minister. It is our opinion, that such materials are not adapted to the purposes 
for which you have used them. We do not think it right or wise to derive our 
religious theories from history, or biography, or fallible men, or churches, or 
human creeds and speculations ; — but claiming the right of private judgment, 
and exercising mental independence, in relation to religion, we feel ourselves 
conscientiously bound to use our reason, and to study the Bible, in the best 
manner of which we are capable, for the purpose of ascertaining what is the 
only true and pure system of natural and revealed religion, free from all human 
corruptions, and above all human authority. But if the kinds of topics embraced 
in the passage above cited from your answer, were perfectly adapted to your 
purpose of showing, that you had not only a right, but that it was your duty, to 
refuse a compliance with the above requests of the Parish, a critical examination 
and investigation of those topics, so far as necessary to discover clearly and fully 
the principles and facts involved in them, would make it manifest, that you took 
a very imperfect view of them, and reasoned erroneously from them, and would 
demonstrate, that they are either inadequate to your support, or are opposed to 
your principles and practice, so far as they are in opposition to the rights claim- 
ed, and the desires expressed to you by the Parish. 

For the purpose of convincing you, that the foregoing observations are true, 
we invite your attention to a candid and careful examination of some of the 
most important of those topics. You appear, Sir, to entertain the opinion, that 
" the great principles of the Protestant reformation," are substantially, although 
" not in every particular, perhaps," the same as the leading and distinguishing 
religious tenets of Calvin. It is presumed, that you will readily admit, that the 
principal and distinguishingtenets in Calvin's system of divinity were the following, 
to wit, particular redemption, or the limitation of the saving effects of Christ's death 
to the elect only ; the total corruption of human nature; the total moral inability 
of man in his fallen state; the irresistibility of divine grace ; and the final perse- 
verance of the saints ; all of which were declared by the synod of Dort in 16J8, to 
be the true and only doctrines of scripture. If these tenets, subject to some unim- 
portant modifications, are the great principles of the Protestant reformation, men- 
tioned by you, a vast multitude of Protestant Christians, of different denomina- 
tions, in Europe and America, have rejected them partially, and a very great 
number of those Christians have totally condemned them, as contradictory to rea- 
son and scripture, as perfectly irreconcileable with the divine attributes, and as de- 
cidedly repugnant and hostile to all pure and undefiled religion Our religion, on 
the subjects of those tenets, is diametrically opposed to them, and bears no more 
resemblance to them, than light does to darkness, or truth to error and false- 
hood. We cannot consent to look deliberately at such tenets, for the purpose, 
or with the expectation, of forming our religious theories from them, nor can we 
anticipate learning any thing of true religion from any reformers, or churches, or 
ancestors, by whom those tenets have been believed, or even professed. The 
adoption of those tenets would appear to us equally a sacrifice of reason, and a 
misconstruction and perversion of revelation, the highest offence against our 
own rational nature, and the perfection of the Supreme Ruler of the universe. 
If the reformers and churches mentioned by you had been, unanimous in their 
belief and profession of the tenets above specified, we should consider those 
tenets as the erroneous and crude productions of human minds, differing entirely 
5 



34 



from the eternal and immutable principles of infinite wisdom, unbounded benev- 
olence, and perfect rectitude. But, as we know that partisan theology cannot 
annihilate or control the truth of history, we confidently state to you, that those 
tenets were not harmoniously professed by the early reformers, or by the 
churches mentioned by you. Examine, for a short time, the history of the re- 
formation, and you will find great numbers, who have belonged to those church- 
es, or who are now members of them, who have not been Calvinists, but have 
professed principles not only different from, but opposed to all the peculiar prin- 
ciples of Calvinism. 

Arminians, who are almost perfectly opposed to the five leading and distin- 
guishing; tenets of Calvinism, have been, and we presume are, very numerous 
in Holland, in Geneva, in Scotland, England, kc. Several authors, eminent for 
their talents, learning, virtues, and piety, who had an extensive and accurate 
knowledge of the Church of England, have stated, and contended strenuously, 
that the Church of England is Arminian. But, however the dispute concerning 
the relative number of Arminians and Calvinists in the Church of England may 
be determined, it is sufficient for the present purpose, to say, that the Arminians 
in it are very numerous, and probably are a majority, and would appear to be 
so, if those belonging to that church were liberated from legal fetters, and should 
declare their real sentiments. 

In Geneva, where Calvinism flourished so long and so exclusively, Arminianism 
took up its residence, and in the course of a few years prevailed so much, that 
the Genevese might almost be denominated an Arminian church. 

After the synod of Doi t, Arminianism made great progress among the reformed 
in various parts of Europe, as well as in the United Provinces. In Bremen, 
Brandenberg, and other churches in Germany, it soon acquired an extensive 
and permanent footing. You know, Sir, the reformers, as they have been gen- 
erally called, soon divided into many denominations, who differed widely from 
each other, as to doctrines, discipline, and worship. Some of those denomina- 
tions, when they first arose, at an early period of the reformation, were extrava- 
gant and enthusiastic, bigoted, superstitious, and exclusive in their religion ; 
but their false, wild, and absurd opinions and doctrines were not more repug- 
nant to the true principles of Christianity, than their actions were to its spirit. 
The last mentioned denominations, by acquiring more knowledge, and restrain- 
ing their zeal ; by giving more operation to their understandings, and less to their 
passions; by gaining something more of moderation, humility, and christian 
charity, and diminishing their bigotry and intolerance ; and by abandoning their 
Pharisaical pride and repulsion, have become w r iser and better men and Chris- 
tians, and have ceased to disgrace their religion by their great errors, absurdities, 
and vices. 

Every intelligent, impartial, and well-educated person, who reads the true 
history of the reformation, in which there is no substitution of undeserved eulo- 
gy for facts, must be deeply impressed with the conviction, that the reformation, 
during a considerable period from its commencement, was very imperfect ; that 
its progress, opposed and retarded by many powerful causes, was very slow ; 
and must feel a deep regret, that the reformers exhibited so many great defects and 
errors in theory, and so much bigotry, uncharitableness, intolerance, and violence 
in practice. We wish to know and to acknowledge with gratitude and praise, 
all the excellence in theology, morals, and piety, which the reformers actually 
exhibited, and to presume in their favor as much as we can reasonably, without 
contravening established facts. It is difficult to imagine men more unfavorably 
situated than the reformers were, for the purpose of acquiring a correct and 
complete system of theological principles, and of attaining to any great purity 
and elevation in morals and piety. They had been educated under the com- 
bined influence of Popish errors, bigotry, superstitions, gross immoralities, and 
despotic ecclesiastical control ; — they were surrounded by the ignorant, supersti- 
tious, corrupt, and intolerant multitude, who were then the subjects of papal 
influence, authority, and power; — they were suspected, watched, resisted, slan- 
dered, and persecuted by the friends and slaves of popery ;. and a vast number of 
powerful causes co-operated to make it extremely difficult for them to produce, 
in themselves and others, that great but partial reformation, in principles and 
action, which was the result of their great and persevering efforts. However im- 
perfect the reformation was, considering all the circumstances under which the 
reformers acted, it is surprising that so great success attended their exertions. 



35 



We would praise and honor them for all their wise and virtuous actions, which 
contributed to the Reformation, so far as history makes them known to us ; 
and view their errors and vices, with the eye of Christian charity, and consider 
them with all reasonable extenuations, which their situation and circumstances 
can furnish. But nothing can transform error into truth ; bigotry or intolerance, 
into charity or candor: or vice into virtue, or folly into wisdom. t Perfect 
charity permits us to view persons and actions in their true character, and never 
requires, or even allows us to praise, or even approve, that which is wrong in 
speculation, feeling or action. 

In relation to Calvin, it is undoubtedly true, that he was a man of powerful 
talent, extensive learning, great zeal, boldness, and perseverance, and that by 
his heroic efforts in resisting the Church of Rome, he contributed largely to the 
Reformation ; but it must be further stated, that his errors were neither few nor 
small : that his conduct was deeply marked by bigotry, intolerance, turbulence, 
and a spirit of persecution, and that there is, in his character as delineated on 
the pases of the most authentic history, a great want of the humble, mild, 
charitable, and beneficent spirit of the gospel, and of the amiable Christian vir- 
tues. It has been stated by respectable authors, and we presume it is true, that 
he surpassed all the other reformers in learning and ability, and most of them 
in obstinacy, asperity, and turbulence When we read the history of persecu- 
tions, and especially those parts of it relating to Castalio, Servetus, and others, the 
splendor of this great luminary of the Reformation is obscured by a dense and 
dark cloud, which can never be dissipated, but will last until the name of Calvin 
shall be lost in oblivion. 

By "that eminent reformer, whose praise is in all the churches," we presume 
you intend to designate Calvin. We cannot perceive the propriety of applying 
to him that fragment of a scriptural text. It implies a character, to which, in 
our opinion. Calvin was not entitled. If by all the churches/* you mean all 
Christian churches, we have no evidence, that his praise, unless it were partial 
and confined to worthy traits in his character, has ever been in ihem all ; nor 
does there exist any good reason, why all those churches should praise him, in- 
discriminately, without distinguishing his true from his false theories ; his Chris- 
tian spirit from his wicked passions, affections, and prejudices, and his virtues 
from his vices. Several entire denominations of Christians, composed of a 
great number of churches, condemn all the distinguishing principles, commonly 
called the five points, in Calvin's system of divinity, and censure many of his 
dispositions and actions. A considerable proportion of the churches, in several 
other Christian denominations, disbelieve and reject the whole, or great and 
essential parts of those principles, and view many parts of his character with 
disapprobation, and some of his actions with abhorrence. One class of Calvin- 
ists say, that Calvin's distinguishing theories do not go far enough ; and another 
class of them, that his theories go too far : and many in both those classes, either 
conceal, or censure, a number of his actions. The above cited phrase, we fear, 
is adapted to convey, into the minds of readers, a very erroneous opinion of 
Calvin's character, and to convince them, thai he actually deserved and received 
the unqualified praise of all Christian churches. 

It i« admitted, that persons possessing a correct and comprehensive knowledge 
of the biography of Calvin and of the history of the Reformation, would not be 
deceived by that phrase, but a great majority of the whole number of Christians 
would receive from it a false impression in relation to his character. We pre- 
sume that you wrote the above cited phrase, subject to a number of great qualifi- 
cations, which you did not think to express. 

We profess not to be blinded by partisan principles in theology, so far as to 
deny praise to any person, who deserves it, or to bestow it, where it is not due, 
and where censure would be better adapted. So far as Calvin was a great and 
good character, we join in his praise ; but we cannot so far depart from correct 
principles, from sound judgmeut, from truth, and from the maxims of wisdom, 
as to eulogize him, without expressly excepting his errors and his vices. 

Should his errors and vices be attributed to the age in which he lived, if it be 
admitted, that his contemporaries exerted so powerful an influence over him, 
as to lead him into error and vice, yet whatever conjecture shall be made as to 
the causes of his errors and vices, they are not thereby tranformed into truth 
and virtue, but retain their original character, according to which we are bound 
to view them and treat them. It may be inquired what pope, priest, emperor, 



36 



king, or individual, what synod, church, diet, or society, in the age of Calvin, 
or for a long time before, or after, knew correctly and comprehensively the 
principles, or spirit, of Christianity, so far as any judgment can be formed from 
their theories, actions, and characters. We have found no evidence, that any 
individual, or any community, society, or association, in Calvin's time, or for a 
long time before, or after, understood the true principles, spirit, and practice of 
Christianity ; and there is great weight of evidence to prove, that every one, 
then professing that system of religion, connected with it many great errors and 
superstitions, and exhibited in his actions numerous violations of its rules and spirit. 
Does not the history of bigotry, superstition, intolerance, and persecution, for sev- 
eral centuries, commencing long before the age of Calvin, and terminating toward 
the close of the seventeenth century, prove conclusively the truth of the fore- 
going observations? If they are true, they demonstrate, that those, who exhib- 
ited Christianity so imperfectly, both in theory and practice, and who so often 
and so grossly violated not only its most important rules, but its spirit, are wholly 
unsuitable to be the legislators, dictators, instructers, or guides, of any person, 
or of the whole human race, through succeeding ages, in Christian theory and 
practice. 

A learned, powerful, and celebrated Christian author says, " By the religion 
of Protestants I do not understand the doctrine of Luther, or Calvin, or Melanc- 
thon, nor the Confession of Augsburg, or Geneva, nor the Catechism of Heidel- 
berg, nor the Articles of the Church of England, no, nor the harmony of Protest- 
ant Confessions ; but that, in which they all agree, and which they all subscribe 
with a greater harmony, as a perfect rule of faith and action, that is, the Bible." — 
" The Bible, I say, the Bible only is the religion of Protestants. Whatsoever else 
they believe, besides it, and the plain, irrefragable, indubitable consequences of 
it, well may they hold it as a matter of opinion ; but as a matter of faith and re- 
ligion, neither can they with coherence to their own grounds believe it them- 
selves, nor require belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical 
presumption. I, for my part, after a long, and, as I believe and hope, impartial 
search of the true way to eternal happiness, do profess plainly, that I cannot 
find any rest for the sole of my foot, but upon this rock only. I see plainly with 
my own eyes, that there are popes against popes ; and councils against councils ; 
some fathers against other fathers ; and some fathers against themselves ; a con- 
sent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age ; traditive 
interpretations of scripture are pretended, but there are few, or none to be found; 
no tradition, but that of the scripture, can derive itself from the fountain, but 
may be plainly proved, either to have been brought in, in such an age after 
Christ, or that in such an age, it was not in. In a word, there is no sufficient 
certainty, but of scripture only, for any considering man to build upon. This, 
therefore, and this only, I have sufficient reason to believe. This I will profess; 
according to this I will live ; and for this, if there be occasion, I will not only 
willingly, but even gladly, lose my life; though I should be sorry, that Christians 
should take it from me. Propose to me any thing out of this book, 1 will sub- 
scribe with hand and heart. In others things, I will take no man's liberty of 
judging from him, neither shall any man take mine from me." " Hence," ob- 
serves another author, " the Bible is the only sure foundation, upon which all true 
Protestants build every article of the faith which they profess, and every point 
of doctrine which they teach. And all other foundations, whether they be the 
decisions of councils, the confessions of churches, the prescripts of popes, or the 
expositions of private men, are considered by them as sandy and unsafe, and, 
as in no wise to be ultimately relied on." You, Sir, have not stated definitely, 
on what principles you believe the original churches in New-England were 
settled, nor proved what those principles were, nor shown that there was a har- 
mony of principles among those churches. Those churches opposed important 
principles believed and professed by the Church of England, and the other 
churches mentioned by you. We would ask you, Sir, what makes those original 
churches a standard for you, or for our faith and practice.'' The members of 
those churches were generally men of very little education and of extremely 
limited knowledge. They exhibited strong passions and powerful prejudices. 
They were, in no small degree, bigoted, superstitious, and intolerant, and, in re- 
lation to religious and ecclesiastical affairs, often manifested an inordinate love 
of power and a spirit of dictation and of persecution. In relation to their re- 
ligion, they rejected all human authority, which was intended to operate upon 



37 



themselves, and yet claimed and exercised an extensive authority over others. 
In short, we have never received any satisfactory evidence, that they were, by 
their superior wisdom, or virtues, or piety, qualified to be a moral and religious 
standard for you and us, and for all succeeding generations of men. 

The preceding observations relating to the theories and characters of the re- 
formers, to the history and character of the Reformation, and to the original 
churches in New-England, exhibit to you, Sir, some of the numerous reasons, 
which influence us in deciding, that it is wiser and more evangelical to consult 
reason and the sacred scriptures, for the purpose of learning and establishing the 
principles of our theology, than to attempt to derive them from the writings of 
reformers, or the opinions of churches, or the peculiar speculations of individu- 
als. We have the same kind of right of private judgment, and to reform other 
individuals and communities, as Luther, Calvin, the Church of England, and 
other reformers had. But we claim no greater right to judge and reform the 
principles of our predecessors, or contemporaries, or to bind our successors, than 
Luther, Calvin, other reformers, and our pious ancestors, claimed. Generally, 
individuals and communities have been ready to believe, if not, at least, to say, 
that their principles are right, and that they are obligatory on the whole world 
and on their successors forever. But their contemporaries and succes ors have 
usually adjudged, that they have had the unquestionable right and adequate 
wisdom, to adopt, or reject, wholly or partially, and to alter or amend those 
principles, according to their judgment. 

By the law of nature all persons have an equal right of conscience. Revela- 
tion and the constitution of this Commonwealth harmonize with the law of na- 
ture, in relation to that right. Liberty of conscience is inalienable. A parish- 
ioner, therefore, by joining in the election and ordination of a minister, does not 
transfer, diminish, or annihilate his liberty and rights of conscience, but after 
such ordination, he is entitled to that liberty and those rights, as much as he was 
before, as he remains liable to all the obligations of conscience. The minister, 
therefore, is bound to exercise his conscience within such limits, and in such a 
manner, as not to infringe upon the Parishioner's liberty or rights of conscience, 
which remain, as they were before the ordination, equal to those of the minis- 
ter. We have, some time since, designated to you, what we conceive to be the 
, true divisional line between your rights of conscience and our own. It appears 
to us, that you pervert the meaning of the word "conscience," and that you 
forget the principles relating thereto, above stated, when, under that name, you 
claim the right, in relation to religion, to decide, riot only for yourself, but for us, and 
for a considerable number of the most able, learned, eloquent, virtuous, and pious 
clergymen in this Commonwealth, and to determine, that they are not Christians 
equally with yourself, and that they are unworthy of being admitted into our 
pulpit. If you will confine your conscience within those limits, which infinite 
wisdom has prescribed to you and to us, and which equally apply to the con- 
sciences of all rational beings, capable of moral action, and connected with 
others in society, and make your convictions of duty conform to an enlightened 
conscience, operating within its proper boundaries, and harmonizing- with the 
eternal rules of rectitude, you will then see clearly, that the rights claimed by 
us, do not, in the least possible degree, interfere with your rights of conscience, 
or convictions of duty, and that the convictions of duty, with which you accuse 
us of interfering palpably, are founded on an erroneous and unwarrantable ex- 
tension of what you call your rights of conscience. If you, Sir, have such rights 
of conscience, as you claim and insist on exercising in this Parish without con- 
trol, if not without resistance, then we have no rights of conscience, in relation 
to the system of moral and religious principles, which we must hear from our 
pulpit, over which you appear to us to be exercising a kind of spiritual dicta- 
torship, and, in this state of things, your conscience is the only one in the Par- 
ish, which can operate effectually concerning those principles. 

You say, Sir, that the principles, on which the two first of the abovementioned 
votes are founded, must, as you apprehend, appear to every unprejudiced mind to 
be as unreasonable as they are unprecedented ; that those making the requests, 
contained in those two votes, could hardly have expected a compliance with 
the request expressed in the last vote ; and that your compliance with the last 
request would be not indefensible merely, but highly culpable. 

On this part of your answer it is sufficient to observe, that our judgment of 
the principles, on which the two first votes are founded, is diametrically oppos- 



38 



ed to your opinion of them. How far reason, or prejudice, has governed you, 
or those who passed the votes, may hereafter be a subject for critical examina- 
tion, and for decision, not by you, or by us, but by a disinterested and impartial 
tribunal, not influenced, or governed, by peculiar theological tenets. You ap- 
pear, Sir, to have a great reverence for the religious opinions, and an exquisite 
sensibility to the wishes of the small number of persons, who adhere to your 
cause, and of the smaller number, who agree with you and your favorite preach- 
ers on the distinguishing points of divinity, and that smaller number are so 
much beloved by you, in consequence of the harmony between you and them, 
on disputed theological tenets, that you, apparently without hesitation, and with 
great pleasure, substitute their will, in relation to our ecclesiastical affairs, for 
that of the Parish, and are very willing to assist them in governing the Parish. 
Do you and the minority in this Parish charitably presume, that the great ma- 
jority of the parishioners are not Christians, and that they have no religious 
principles and rights ? The majority in this Parish feel a sincere, ardent, and 
strong attachment to those religious principles, which they believe and profess; 
and while they consider truth in theology of infinite value, and all error danger- 
ous and pernicious, they feel bound to advocate and support what they fully 
believe to be true religion, with all their ability, and with a laudable zeal and 
perseverance, and to expose and resist false and pernicious doctrines in theology, 
by a seasonable use of the best and most effectual means in their power, and in 
that way, which will, probably, subserve, in the best manner, the cause of divine 
truth, and the best interests of pure and undefiled religion. Considering the dis- 
tinguishing tenets of Calvinism not only false, but immoral in their tendency, 
we feel a deep conviction, that we are bound, by an indispensable obligation, 
to expose the falstiy of those tenets, and, in the most effectual manner, to op- 
pose their propagation. We regret, Sir, that you have departed so widely from 
the ancient usage in this Parish, and from your own former charitable and im- 
partial practice, in relation to ecclesiastical exchanges, and that you have, by 
your innovations in your conduct as pastor of this Parish, excited great dissatis- 
faction, violated our rights, and done a great injury to the Parish. 

When a minister and a great majority of his parishioners become decidedly 
opposed to each other, in doctrine and practice, or either of them, and there is 
good reason to believe, that the differences between them have become irrecon- 
cileable, it must necessarily subserve the peace and good order of society, and 
the best interests of ecclsiastical institutions, to have a separation take place. 
How your asking a dismissal, agreeably to the request made to you, could be 
tl a baneful precedent," we cannot easily conceive, and we think it required con- 
siderable imagination in you to enable you to draw that conclusion. You appear 
to be apprehensive, that your compliance with the requests made to you in the 
above votes, would be followed by many pernicious effects ; but we are fully 
convinced, that such compliance, instead of producing any one of those effects, 
would contribute, in a high degree, to the ultimate good of the Parish and to 
the best interests of all concerned. 

If a minister has the only conscience in his Parish ; if he can successfully op- 
pose the religious principles, wishes, and taste, of a very large majority of the 
parishioners, and violate their rights ; if he can, under the word "conscience," 
or any other name, or pretext, assume the authority of a spiritual dictator, and 
drive the majority of the parishioners into exile from the Parish, for the purpose 
of enjoying liberty of conscience, and of hearing true religion, no free and inde- 
pendent people will, in future, consent to elect and ordain a minister; but will 
employ one to preach in such way and under such circumtances, as shall be ne- 
cessary to preserve their rights and protect their consciences against violation. 
To induce Parishes to elect and settle ministers, the advantages anticipated from 
it should be great and numerous, and the incidental evils, few, small, and easily 
remedied. But if, on the other hand, those evils are many, great, and difficult 
to be remedied, or irremediable, Parishes will not incur the risk, or encounter 
the danger, of having pastors ordained over them. 

We have endeavored to state to you distinctly a few of our objections to 
your Answer, some of the reasons on which they are founded, and a small number 
of our arguments to show the reasonableness of said requests, and of those before 
made to you. It is more wise and magnanimous to correct errors, than to ad- 
here to and perpetuate them. We hope, Sir, that you will seriously, impartially, 
charitably, and critically reconsider the past transactions between you and the ma- 



3D 



jority of your parishioners, and that you may, in consequence of it, make such 
decision as shall be satisfactory to all concerned, and promotive of their best in- 
terests. 

Cambridge, Aug. 2, 1828. 

This Address was signed by 80 parishioners, and communicated to 
Dr. Holmes on the 2d of August, 1828. 

On the 9th of August was received the following 
Reply of Dr. Holmes. 

To the Subscribers to a Paper of the 2d inst. communicated by their Committee. 

The Votes of the Parish of the 17th of May having requested me to exclude 
ministers of the " Calvinistic denomination " from our public services, I stated 
in my answer what I supposed to be meant by those words. If that be not the 
meaning, the Votes are, to me, unintelligible. I need only say, it is not the 
character of the Reformer that is here in question, nor what can be said for, or 
against, the principles of the Reformation ; nor is it the question, Whether the 
principles of our Church are founded on the opinions of any man, or body of 
men; for it is certain, that they were originally, and are still, professedly be- 
lieved on the authority of the Bible. All Christian churches and religious socie- 
ties, it is taken for granted, have some professed principles of religion. When a 
minister has become settled in a church and society upon their own professed 
principles, he himself professing them, he is unquestionably at liberty to change 
his own principles,. if he see just cause; but, in that case, he can no longer justly 
claim to be their minister. His parishioners also have unquestionably the same 
liberty ; but, in case of their change, they cannot reasonably claim the introduc- 
tion of their diverse and opposite principles into his ministry. 

My answer to the Votes of the Parish is grounded on the obligation I feel 
myself under to the Church and Parish, by our mutual engagements, and by 
my ordination vows; and I request the Parish Committee to communicate it to 
the Parish, with the best wishes for its peace and welfare, and the sincere re- 
gard of 

Its affectionate pastor, 
Cambridge, 9 August, 1828. A. HOLMES. 

As the above communication of August 9th, 1828, indicates a great 
alteration in Dr. Holmes' opinion, as to the topics which are proper 
in the controversy, it deserves particular attention. 

If " the character of the Reformer," u the principles of the Refor- 
mation," and " the question, whether the principles of our church are- 
founded on the opinions of any man, or any body of men," have no 
connexion with the controversy between Dr. Holmes and this Parish, 
why did he introduce them, and urge them with zeal, boldness, and 
perseverance ? A short examination of the preceding parts of the 
controversy, will show the great importance which he attached to 
those and other similar subjects. Dr. Holmes has not proved, that 
he made the inhabitants of this Parish understand, that he was a Cat- 
vinist, at the time of his settlement here. At that time, a majority of 
those inhabitants were decidedly liberal, and harmonized with the 
Rev. Mr. Hilliard, his immediate predecessor. If a minister makes his 
contract with a Parish, in the usual, general terms of such contracts, 
and settles there under that contract, and at the time gives no notice 
of his intention to deviate from the then existing, well known usages 
in the Parish, and afterwards, by his own practice for more than 30 
years under that contract, gives his own practical construction of it, 
conformable to said usages, is he not, in such case, bound, in the 



40 



performance of the contract, to conform to said usages and construc- 
tion 1 When the contract was made, he and the Parish both had 
reference to those usages, and they thereby became part of the con- 
tract. That there was such reference to said usages is fully proved 
by Dr. Holmes' own practical construction of it. He exchanged im- 
partially and freely with ministers of the liberal denomination ; a 
large proportion of his exchanges, for more than 30 years from the 
commencement of his ministry in the Parish were with that denomi- 
nation ; and then, without the consent of the majority of the Parish, 
without any notice to them, and against their religious 'principles, 
adopted the Calvinistic exclusive system, in relation to pastoral ex- 
changes, in direct violation of his own former practice and said 
usages. Was not this great innovation in his practice a clear legal 
breach of said contract ? If a minister, who changes " his own 
principles," which he professed at the time of his settlement in a 
Parish, can " no longer claim to be their minister," does it not 
follow, for much stronger reasons, that a minister, who wholly changes 
his practice, on the very important subject of pastoral exchanges, in 
the manner Dr. Holmes has done, as above stated, can " no longer 
claim to be their minister 1 " Such a change is a clear breach of 
his contract, and he has, after that breach, no right to require the 
Parish to perform it on their part. Such a change in practice af- 
fects the principles, feelings, and interests of those concerned much 
more deeply, than a change in mere theory, and is much more of- 
fensive and injurious. It would, therefore, be in the highest degree 
unreasonable and unjust to decide, that such change of principles 
shall be a forfeiture of a minister's office, as Dr. Holmes does, and, 
at the same time, to determine that he shall not lose his office by such 
change of practice. 

But the questions naturally and necessarily arise from the facts in 
this case, why has Dr. Holmes changed his practice, in relation to 
pastoral exchanges, as above stated 1 has it proceeded from a change 
in his religious principles and feelings, relating to Christian charity ; 
corresponding to, and co-extensive with, the innovation in his prac- 
tice 1 If Dr. Holmes has changed his principles on the most impor- 
tant subject in religion ; on that which is greater than faith, or hope, 
and absolutely essential to pure Christianity, or true religion ; on 
that, without which all professions of religion are u as sounding brass, or 
a tinkling cymbal ; " then, according to his own decision, he has no 
longer a right to claim the office of minister of this Parish. Is it possi- 
ble to account satisfactorily for the above very great change in the 
Doctor's practice, without a change in his religious theories and feelings 
of equal magnitude, and sufficient to cause that change in his official 
conduct ? The intelligent, candid, and impartial are invited to ex- 
amine critically all the facts in this controversy, and then to decide, 
whether they do not create an irresistible presumption, and prove in 
the most satisfactory manner, that Dr. Holmes has entirely changed 
some of the most important of his religious principles and feelings, 
and whether that change is not the true and only cause, which can be 
assigned, sufficient to account for the above change in his pastoral 
practice. 



41 



During more than thirty years of his ministry here, he exchanged 
freely, and, probably, mude more than one half of his exchanges with 
clergymen of the liberal denomination ; with those, who were generally 
known, and whom he knew, to be Unitarians. The whole number of 
ministers, with whom he exchanged, or whom he invited to preach 
for him, is not necessary to be stated here, but Dr. Holmes will 
probably admit, that he introduced into our pulpit, by pastoral ex- 
changes or by invitation, the following ministers, to icit, Rev. Presi- 
dent Kirkland, Rev. Dr. Ware, Rev. Dr. Ripley, Rev. Dr. Kendal, 
Rev. Dr. Porter, Rev. Dr. Harris, Rev. Dr. Pierce, Rev. Dr. Foster, 
Rev. Dr. Channing, Rev. Dr. Lowell, Rev. Dr. Gray, Rev. Mr. Gan- 
nett, Rev. Mr. Greenwood, Rev. Mr. Everett, Rev. Mr. Palfrey, Rev. 
Mr. Frothingham, Rev. Henry Ware, Rev. Mr. Parkman, Rev. Mr. 
Buckminster, Rev. Mr. Abbott, Rev. Mr. Thacher, Rev. Mr. Ripley, 
Rev. Mr. Bartlett, Rev. Mr. Upham, Rev. Mr. Green, formerly of 
Maiden, Rev. Mr. Stetson, Rev. Mr. Francis, Rev. Mr. Field, Rev. 
Mr. Bigelow, Rev. Mr. Brazer, Rev. Mr. Kent, Rev. Isaac Smith, 
Rev. Mr. Eliot. Rev. Mr. Gil man, Rev. Mr. Briggs, Rev. John 
Mellen, Rev. Prof. Willard, Rev. Mr. Gannett, of Boston, Rev. Mr. 
Lamson, Mr. George B. English. It can be conclusively proved, that 
he assisted in ordaining candidates, whom he knew to be Unitarians, 
and exchanged with them afterwards, and that they have not changed 
their religious principles. For two of those candidates, he preached 
the ordination sermons, in each of which he bestowed on the candidate 
elect, as high commendation, as any good man and real Christian 
could deserve, or even wish, and said every thing, which propriety 
would warrant, to convince the parishioners that the candidate was, in 
every respect, fully adapted to the pastoral office, and worthy of his 
and their entire confidence and affection. Dr. Holmes knew the 
Rev. Mr. Gannett of Cambridge-Port to be a Unitarian, when he was 
a theological student in Cambridge, also at the time of preaching his 
ordination sermon, and during the whole period of his pastoral inter- 
course with him. and exchanged with him very often, it is believed 
four or five times a year, for several years, and cultivated a very great 
intimacy with him, as a pastor and a friend, until his last exchange 
with Mr. Gannett, in June, 1S'26 ; but after that time refused to ex- 
change with him. In a late conversation with Mr. Gannett, Dr. Holmes 
justified the interruption of his exchanges with Mr. G., on the ground, 
that the time had come to draw a line among Congregational ministers. 
Dr. Holmes usually exchanged once in each collegiate term with the 
late President Kirkland and the Rev. Dr. Ware. 

Dr. Holmes' very public situation, his age, his knowledge, his habits 
of investigation on historical and biographical subjects, his connexion 
with the University, as an Overseer and Lecturer, create an irresisti- 
ble presumption, that Dr. Holmes knew as much as the best informed 
persons in the community, concerning the theological denomination 
of the ministers with whom he exchanged, and whom he invited to 
preach for him ; and, as it was well understood in the community, 
that many, and probably a majority, of those with whom Dr. Holmes 
exchanged, and whom he invited to preach, were Unitarians, it is 
improbable, in the highest degree, and almost impossible to be be- 

6 



42 



lieved by any one, who founds his opinion on evidence, that Dr. Holmes 
was ignorant of that fact, or of what most other persons, of less in- 
formation and less favorably situated, actually knew. Dr. Holmes can 
never convince any impartial individual, or tribunal, that he did not 
know many of those with whom he exchanged, or whom he invited to 
preach, to be decided Unitarians ; and he can never control the pre- 
sumption, that he did know it, except in the minds of those who 
cannot understand evidence, or of those who always decide in favor 
of one belonging to their party, or denomination, without ascertaining, 
considering, or even admitting the facts. Dr. Holmes may allege, 
that the liberal ministers with whom he formerly exchanged, and those 
whom he invited to preach, have altered their religious principles, and 
ceased to be Christians, that they preach another Gospel, &c. ; but 
those ministers wholly deny, that they have altered their principles, and 
a vast number of their parishioners and auditors can testify, that those 
ministers now profess and preach the same principles they did during 
the period of Dr. Holmes' exchanges with them. Dr. Holmes' opinion, 
or assertion, or the opinions of those who censure and condemn, not 
from knowledge, but from policy, can have no weight, in opposition 
to the evidence in this case, which the Parish can produce. It is to 
be presumed, that Dr, Holmes acted conscientiously, when he ex- 
changed often with ministers of the liberal denomination, and fre- 
quently invited the candidates resident in Cambridge to preach for 
him ; but now Dr. Holmes alleges, that he cannot conscientiously 
exchange with those ministers, who say they have not changed their 
principles ; it therefore necessarily and inevitably follows, that Dr. 
Holmes has greatly changed his religious principles and sentiments, 
on an essential and vital part of christian theology ; on the glorious 
virtue of christian charity, the most important part of the christian 
system ; on a part of such immense value, that any man, who is with- 
out it, though he " speak with the tongues of men and of angels," is 
nothing. What change in religious principles and sentiments can be 
greater, than that which Dr. Holmes has experienced, since the expi- 
ration of the first thirty years of his ministry here, and demonstrated 
by his exclusive practice, to which he has inflexibly adhered, in oppo- 
sition to all the numerous means, used by the Parish to dissuade him 
from it, and to recal him to his former charitable, christian practice 1 
Dr. Holmes' actions have created the above presumption of his having 
greatly changed his religious principles, and until he shall control that 
presumption, in every impartial mind the conclusion must be conform- 
able to it, and that he has, by that change, justly forfeited his right to 
the pastoral office in this Parish. 

On the 11th of December following, the Parish Committee, pursu- 
ant to the written application of fifty-two voters in Parish affairs, issued 
their warrant for a meeting on the 22nd of the same month, to act on 
the following articles. 

" 1. To choose a Moderator of said Meeting. 

" 2. To hear the answer of the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor of said Parish, to the 
votes passed hy said Parish, on the 17th day of May, A. D. 1828, and act in relation 
thereto, as they may deem expedient. 

"3. To see if said Parish will appoint a Committee, to propose to the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, to unite with them in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to advise in 



43 



relation to all differences and matters in controversy, existing between him and said 
Parish, with authority to represent said Parish before such Council, and to adopt and 
pursue all suitable and legal measures, in relation to a settlement of said difficulties, 
or dissolution of the connexion existing between the said Holmes and said Parish. 

" 4. To see if said Parish will authorize and direct said Committee, in case the Rev. 
Dr. Holmes shall not accede to such proposition for a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, 
forthwith to proceed to the choice of an ex parte Council, for the purpose aforesaid, 
and to prepare and lay before the same, such articles of charge or causes of complaint 
as they may deem lawful and expedient, and to appear and act before said Council in 
behalf of said Parish. 

" 5. To adopt any other measures, in relation to the subject matter otthe foregoing 
articles, or to the difficulties subsisting between the Rev. Dr. Holmes and said Par- 
ish, as they may deem proper." 

PARISH MEETING DECEMBER 22, 1828. 

At a legal meeting of the inhabitants of the First Parish in the town of Cambridge , 
in the county of Middlesex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, qualified by law 
to vote in Parish affairs, held at the court-house in said Parish, on Monday, the 
twenty-second day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
and twenty-eight, 

Abel Whitney is elected Moderator of said meeting. 

A Communication from the Rev. Dr. Holmes,* bearing date May 31, 1828, in re- 
lation to the votes of the Parish of May 17, A. D. 1828, is read, and ordered to be 
placed on the files of the Parish papers. 

The subject matter of the Third Article in the warrant for calling this meeting be- 
ing under consideration, two memorials, one signed by William Hilliard and nine- 
teen other inhabitants and voters of said Parish, requesting this Parish to take no 
measures contemplated in the warrant aforesaid, without seeking the concurrence 
therewith of the Church in this Parish ; the other signed by William Hilliard and four 
others, as a Committee of the Church aforesaid, suggesting the expediency of such 
concurrence on the part of said Church, with a resolution appointing a committee of 
five of said Church, associated with its pastor, with authority to confer with the in- 
habitants of said Parish, or a committee appointed for the purpose, and to act upon 
the subject of calling a mutual Council, &c. to which is annexed a certificate of the 
proceedings of said Church, at a meeting thereof on the twenty-first of December, 
instant, attested by Abiel Holmes, Pastor, adopting said memorial, appointing a 
Committee, contemplated by said resolution, and containing the following vote, viz. 

" Voted, that the Committee above named, be authorized and requested to appear 
before any Ecclesiastical Council that may be called by the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge, to represent the interests of the Church upon all questions involved in the 
several articles in the warrant for calling the Parish meeting, to be holden on the 22d 
instant." Which memorial, having been heard and considered, on motion of William 
Hilliard, Esq. it is 

Voted, That the same lie upon the table. 

The following Preamble and Motion, namely : 

" Whereas the Rev. Dr. Holmes, for more than thirty years after his settlement as 
pastor over the First Parish in Cambridge, — following the example of his immediate 
predecessors in said office, — was in the practice of frequent, liberal, and impartial 
exchanges with clergymen of the congregational order, but within three years last 
past has altogether abandoned such liberal and impartial practice of exchanges, con- 
trary to the wishes, and against the expressed request of a great majority of the legal 
voters in said Parish ; and has, instead thereof, adopted and followed the illiberal, and 
as we believe, unchristian, exclusive system of a few zealous and overbearing di- 
vines, which is altogether opposed to his long practice during many years, and to 
immemorial usage in this Parish, restricting his exchanges and invitations to the 
particular sect of preachers self-styled Orthodox, against the express wishes of a 
majority of his parishioners, and knowing that the introduction of such preachers 
was exceedingly painful to such majority ; and, whereas the members of this Parish 
are convinced, that the practice of exchanges, originally intended for two valuable 
purposes, to wit, the relief of teachers in their parochial duties, and the cultivation of 
good fellowship between sister churches, was always subordinate in its very nature to 
the more important point of harmony between the minister and his people, and the 
introduction of teachers, whose known opinions are offensive to the majority of any 
Parish, is diametrically opposed to the very principles on which exchanges, — never 



* See page 30. 



44 



a matter of right, but always one of courtesy, — were founded, and that it is a gross 
and unkind abuse of such an indulgence to introduce teachers, whose opinions are 
known to the pastor to be offensive to his flock : — Whereas, by these, and other 
innovations in the performance of his public duties, as pastor, as well as by his inflex- 
ible and constant refusal to accede to the reasonable wishes of a great majority of the 
qualified voters in said Parish, expressed from lime to time by memorials, addresses, 
and votes of said Parish, requesting him to return to his former practice of liberal 
exchanges, or to discontinue to invite to his pulpit, clergymen of the Calvinistic de- 
nomination, — the affection and regard of said Parishioners have become alienated 
from their said pastor, and his influence and usefulness in said office have been much 
impaired, if not utterly destroyed, as regards the majority of said Parish : — And where- 
as it is desirable that said Parishioners may obtain reiief from grievances long suffer- 
ed from the before-mentioned, and other conduct and proceedings of their pastor, 
(hereafter to be specified by their committee, if chosen,) and that all existing con- 
troversies and complaints between him and his people may be adjusted in a peaceful, 
equitable, and legal manner, — Therefore 

Voted, That this Parish will appoint a committee to propose to the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, to unite with them in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to advise in 
relation to all differences and matters in controversy existing between him and said 
Parish, with authority to represent said Parish before such Council, and to employ 
counsel to assist them if they shall deem it expedient, and to adopt and pursue all 
suitable and legal measures in relation to a settlement of said difficulties, or dissolu- 
tion of the connexion existing between the said Holmes and said Parish," 

were then offered for adoption by said Parish, whereupon it was 

Voted, That the same be adopted and passed,— fifty-Jive voting in the affirmative, 
and fourteen in the negative. 

Voted, That said committee consist of seven persons, and that they be chosen by 
ballot. 

The following persons were thereupon thus chosen to compose said committee, viz. 
Abraham Hilliard, 
Abel Whitney, 
Joseph Holmes, 
Francis Dana, 
William J. Whipple, 
Sylvanus Plympton, 
Job Wyeth. 

Voted, That this Parish do authorize and direct said Committee, in case the Rev. 
Dr. Holmes shall not accede to such proposition for a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, 
forthwith to proceed to the choice of an ex parte Council, for the purpose aforesaid, 
and to prepare, and to lay before the same, such articles of charge, or causes of com- 
plaint, as they may deem lawful and expedient, and to appear and act before said 
Council, in behalf of said Parish, and to employ counsel to assist them, if they shall 
deem it expedient. 

Voted, That this Parish deem it unnecessary to take any further order in relation 
to the memorials and papers before mentioned, presented at this meeting by William 
Hilliard, Esq. 

Voted, That this meeting be dissolved. 

A true record, Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

A true copy from the records of said Parish, 

Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

A copy of the above record was soon after the meeting transmitted 
to Dr. Holmes, by the Clerk of the Parish. 

The following are the memorials referred to in the preceding rec- 
ord : 

MEMORIAL OF SUNDRY MEMBERS OF THE FIRST PARISH IN CAMBRIDGE. 

To the Inhabitants of the First Parish in Cambridge, in Parish Meeting as- 
sembled, this twenty second day of December, A. D. 1828, 

The undersigned, inhabitants and legal voters in said Parish, beg leave to repre- 
sent, That, having already expressed in certain remonstrances, at former meetings of 
this Parish, their opinions in respect to the course pursued by this Parish in relation 
to its connexion with the Rev. Dr. Holmes, its minister, and having likewise, in the 



45 



same remonstrances, declared their approbation of their minister's conduct, deem it 
unnecessary again, at this time, to state their sentiments upon these points ; — that, 
taking into their consideration the state of feeling of a part of the Parish, and being 
desirous of a speedy and amicable adjustment of all differences and difficulties, they 
have no disposition to oppose any reasonable proposition, tending to the removal of 
these difficulties, provided the proposition be so framed as that all interested be includ- 
ed as parties to the transaction ; — that, considering the intimate and sacred relation 
in which pastor and church stand to each other, there can be none more deeply and 
vitally interested in the proposed measures than the church in this Parish ; — that 
the undersigned, therefore, cannot but hope, the Parish will not adopt any mea- 
sures tending to the removal of the pastor, without first seeking the concurrence of 
the church, and this, not only from a regard to the church, but also from the circum- 
stance, that an opposite mode of procedure would be contrary to reason and right, 
to all respectable usage, here and elsewhere, and to the spirit and letter of the statute, 
incorporating the Trustees of our Ministerial Fund, that statute, as will be seen, pro- 
viding expressly, that the income of the fund shall be appropriated in part, " to pay 
&c.or salaries of such Congregational minister or ministers, as shall be regularly or- 
dained and settled in said Parish, by the joint concurrence of the Inhabitants and 
the Church thereof.'''' But if our minister must be chosen by " the joint concur- 
rence" of the church and Parish, must he not by the same concurrence be dismiss- 
ed? And is it competent for the Parish, without consulting, or so much as notifying 
the Church, to take measures for his dismission? 

The Parish have no right to infer that the Church, if properly consulted, would not 
cheerfully co-operate in any reasonable and proper measures tending to a removal of 
existing difficulties. Indeed, we are sure that they will co-operate ; for they have 
already had a meeting, and made a full expression of their sentiments ; and a com- 
mittee of the Church are present, to lay their memorial on your table. If, however, the 
Parish should refuse to listen to the consideration here suggested, and to the memorial 
of the Church, and should determine to proceed in the measures contemplated, with- 
out regard to the wishes, or even the existence of the Church, the undersigned can 
only express their conviction, that no persons, calling themselves ministers of Christ, 
and holding themselves answerable to him, and standing declaredly and prominently 
before the community as heads of his churches on earth, would take upon them 
selves the fearful responsibility of holding his churches for nought, or that they 
would do any other act, than to recommend to the Parish to retrace their steps, and, 
at least, to ask for the concurrence of the Church. Or, if any, calling themselves 
an Ecclesiastical Council, should uphold and justify the Parish in such proceedings, 
the undersigned can have no doubt that their result would be over-ruled and rectified 
by an appeal to the judicial authorities of the country. 

Cambridge, Dec. 22, 1828. Signed by William Hilliard and 19 others. 

Memorial of the First Church of Christ in Cambridge. 

To the Inhabitants of the First Parish in Cambridge. 

The First Church of Christ in Cambridge, being apprised, by the notification 
of the meeting of the inhabitants of said Parish, with which they are associated, 
to be holden on Monday, the 22d day of December instant, at two o'clock, P. M. 
" To see if said Parish will appoint a Committee to propose to the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, to unite with them in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to advise 
in relation to all differences and matters in controversy, existing between him 
and said Parish, with authority to represent said Parish before said Council, and 
to adopt and pursue all suitable and legal measures in relation to a settlement of 
said difficulties, or dissolution of the connexion existing between the said Holmes 
and the said Parish ; and to see if said Parish will authorize and direct said Com- 
mittee, in case the Rev. Dr. Holmes shall not accede to such proposition for a 
mutual Ecclesiastical Council, forthwith to proceed to the choice of an ex parte 
Council, for the purpose aforesaid, and to prepare and lay before the same, such 
articles of charge or causes of complaint as they may deem lawful and expedient, 
and to appear and act before the council, in behalf of said Pa.Msh ;" and being 
deeply interested in the result of the measures proposed to be taken at the said 
meeting, would respectfully present to said Parish, in Parish meeting assembled, 
the following considerations : — 

1. It is manifestly just and proper, when two bodies are interested and con- 
cerned in a common object, involving highly interesting and important concerns; 



46 



that neither of these bodies should proceed to take measures, which would in- 
volve either their rights or interests, without mutual consultation, and a due 
regard to the views and feelings of both. A Church and a Parish, when asso- 
ciated for public worship, though distinct bodies in themselves, are thus united, 
and the services of their religious teacher constitute an object of great common 
interest. Is it proper, therefore, or is it just, for a Parish, in sucb circumstances, 
to take measures for procuring the dismission of a minister, without consulting 
the wishes of the Church, who were a party in his settlement, or so much as in- 
forming them officially of the measures contemplated? 

2. It is not only just in itself, but conformable to ancient usage in New-Eng- 
land, for a Church and Parish, associated for public worship, to act in concert in 
the settlement of ministers, and consequently in their removal from office. It is 
believed, that no general usage can be referred to, in justification of a different 
course. 

3. Such, also, has been the invariable usage of this Church and Parish. When 
our present pastor was settled, he was settled like all previous pastors, (unless it 
be one or two of the earliest, who were settled by the Church alone,) by the 
concurrent voice of the Church and Parish. If he be dismissed, ought he not to 
be dismissed in the samp way? Does it not require the same power to dismiss 
him, that it did to settle him ? 

4. But farther, it will appear, from recurrence to the Act incorporating the 
Trustees of the Ministerial Fund of the First Parish in Cambridge, from which 
Fund our present minister is supported in part, that the avails of said Fund are 
required to be appropriated in a given amount of the income " to pay the salary 
or salaries of such Congregational minister or ministers, as shall be regularly 
ordained and settled in said Parish, by the joint concurrence of the inhabitants and 
the church thereof." This special enactment of the legislature, in regard to this 
Church and Parish, is grounded on the express will of the donors, by whose 
beneficence the Ministerial Fund was constituted, on the ancient usages of the 
country, and the invariable usage of this Parish ; and requires, that whoever is 
authorized to receive the avails of the ministerial Fund, must be chosen by " the 
joint concurrence " of the Parish and the Church. But if it be necessary, that our 
minister should be chosen in this way, must he not be dismissed in the same 
way? Is it competent for the Parish, without consulting the wishes of the 
Church, to take measures for his removal from office ? 

The First Church in Cambridge, deeply lament the unhappy difficulties which 
exist between the inhabitants of said Parish and the Rev. Dr. Holmes, their min- 
ister, and feel as anxious, as any of said inhabitants can feel, to adopt such 
measures as will tend to bring about an amicable adjustment of all such difficul- 
ties ; — Provided, that the inhabitants of said Parish, according to general usage, 
unite with said Church, and their Pastor, in calling a mutual council. Therefore, 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appoinied from this church, associated 
with the pastor thereof, with full power and authority to confer with the inhab- 
itants of the Parish or any committee appointed for the purpose, and to act upon 
the subject of calling a mutual council to settle all difficulties existing between 
the inhabitants of said Parish, and the Rev. Dr. Holmes, as is set forth in the 
warrant for calling a Parish meeting, on the 22d instant. 

WILLIAM HILLIARD, ^ 
JAMES M UN ROE, | Committee 
RICHARD H. DANA, } of 
S. F. SAWYER, the Church. 

JONA. C. PRENTISS, J 

Cambridge, Dec. 21, 1828. 

At a meeting of the First Church of Christ in Cambridge, holder) by a regular 
notice thereof, at the Rev. Dr. Holmes' meeting-house, in said town, on the 
twenty-first day of December, A. D. 1828. 

Voted, That the foregoing memorial of this Church to the inhabitants of the 
First Parish in Cambridge (having been read and considered by said Church) be 
adopted, and that Deacon William Hilliard, Deacon James Munroe, Richard H. 
Dana, Samuel F. Sawyer, and Jonathan C. Prentiss, be a committee to present 
the same to the inhabitants of said Parish, at the meeting thereof on the 22d 
instant. 



47 



Voted, That Deacon "William Hilliard, Deacon James Munroe, Richard H. Dana, 
Samuel F. Sawyer, and Jonathan C. Prentiss, be a committee in behalf of this 
Church, in connexion with the pastor thereof, with full power and authority to 
confer with the inhabitants of the Parish, or any committee appointed for" the 
purpose, and to act upon the subject of calling a mutual council for the purposes 
set forth in the warrant for calling the Parish meeting, to be holden on the 22d 
instant. 

I'oted, That the committee above named be authorized and requested to ap- 
pear before any Ecclesiastical Council, that may be called by the First Parish 
in Cambridge, to represent the interests of the Church upon all questions involv- 
ed in the several articles in the warrant for calling the Parish meeting to be 
holden on the 22d instant. 

A true copv of the proceedings of the First Church in Cambridge, 21st De" 
cember, 1628. Attest. ABIEL HOLMES, Pastor. 

Cambridge, 22 December, 1S28. 

At a meeting of the committee appointed by the First Parish in 
Cambridge, December 22, A. D. 1828, to propose to the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, " to unite with them in calling a mutual ecclesiastical coun- 
cil," 6c c. December 31, 1828, — present, all the members thereof, 

Abraham Hilliard is appointed Chairman, and William J. Whipple, 
Clerk, of said Committee. 

Voted, That the Clerk of this committee be directed to communicate to Rev. 
Dr. Holmes notice of the appointment of said committee, and the objects of said 
appointment, and to request of him to name the time and place at which he 
will meet said committee, to confer on the subject committed to them. 

A true copy. Attest. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Committee. 

In pursuance of the foregoing vote of Committee, the following com- 
munication was sent to Dr. Holmes. 

Cambridge, January 1, 1829. 

Rev. Dr. Holmes, 

Sir, — The Committee appointed by the First Parish in Cambridge, at a Parish 
meeting on the twenty-second day of December last, to propose to you " to 
unite with them in calling a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council," kc. have directed 
me to request you to inform them at what time and place you will please to 
meet them, for the purpose of conferring in relation to the object of their ap- 
pointment. 

I am, Rev. Sir, in behalf said Committee, 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE.* 



* This communication commences the correspondence of said Committee with ' 
Dr. Holmes, proposing to him a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, and they con- 
tinued to repeat their proposal of such Council to him, until the 13th day of April , 
1829, and used much industry to obtain from him a plain and definite answer to 
their proposal of such Council, to be elected by the Committee, in behalf of the 
Parish, on one part, and by Dr. Holmes on the other part, as will appear by 
their other communications to him, under the following dates, to v:it, February 
9th, 1829 ; March 9th, 1S29 ; March 18th, 1829 ; April 1st, 1829 ; April 13th, 1829. 

Critical attention to the correspondence between the Committee and Dr. 
Holmes, proposing to him such Council, is invited, that the reader may be 
fully prepared, at the end of the correspondence, to decide on the question, 
whether Dr. Holmes refustd such Council, to be elected as above stated. The 
Committee waited from said 13th day of April, the date of their last communi- 
cation to Dr. Holmes, until April 16th, 1829, but Dr. Holmes made no reply 
thereto, and the Committee, on said 16th of April, elected the ex parte Council 
for the Parish, on the ground of Dr. Holmes' neglect and refusal to join them in 
the election of the Council proposed, in the manner proposed. 



48 



To which Dr. Holmes returned the following reply. 

Cambridge, 1 January, 1829. 

William J. Whipple, Esq. 
Sir, — The very peculiar circumstances attending the measure adopted by the 
Parish, proposing to me to unite with them in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council, render it my incumbent duty to consider the subject very seriously and 
deliberately, previous to any conference. When prepared for it, the Committee 
may expect information from, 

Yours, respectfully, 

A. HOLMES. 

The existence of the following paper, addressed by a Committee of 
the Church to Dr. Holmes, was first made known to the Parish by its 
appearance in the u Account" &c, and in consequence thereof, it 
is here inserted. 

" On the 9th of January, a Committee in behalf of the church, presented to the 
pastor the following address : — 

Rev. Sir, — The undersigned, a Committee appointed by the First Church in 
Cambridge, at a meeting holden on the fourth day of January, inst. to express 
to you their views in rela'ion to the late proceedings of the inhabitants of the 
First Parish in said town, deeply affecting the relations subsisting between you 
and said Church and Parish, respectfully represent, 

That they have viewed with deep solicitude the various measures, that have 
recently been adopted by a majority of the Parish in said town, tending to a 
dissolution of the ministerial relation, which has so long and so happily sub- 
sisted between pastor and church, minister and people. They cannot but be- 
lieve, that most, if not all, the measures proposed and-adopted by said Parish, 
are rare, if not altogether unprecedented in their nature and tendency, and if 
carried into operation, would result in a total abandonment of that right of 
private judgment, and that independent exercise of this right, which appertains 
to the ministerial character in common with that of others. 

The undersigned having, in their capacity as members of the Parish, already 
expressed their opinion, in relation to the several propositions made and adopted 
by a majority of said Parish, deem it unnecessary here to enumerate them. But 
upon a careful review of the opinions thus formed, and the reasons urged in 
their support, they have perceived no sufficient ground for a different judgment. 
We, however, deem it important in the present state of things, in our capacity as 
members of your church, to express our dissent from the measures adopted by the 
Parish, in their corporate capacity, and our approbation of the course taken by 
you, in relation to the several propositions submitted to your consideration. We 
do this, from a full conviction that a sense of duty, and of the solemn obligation 
imposed upon a minister of Christ, conscientiously and fearlessly to discharge 
this duty, alone guided your deliberations and final decisions. We are also per- 
suaded, that many and fervent supplications have been directed to the Source of 
all Wisdom, for that light and guidance, in coming to such results, as would ulti- 
mately tend to promote the greatest amount of good to those with whom you 
sustained so near and so endearing a relation. Jn view of this relation, which has 
so long and so happily subsisted between us, we cannot forbear to express our 
regret, at the adoption of such measures, as have a tendency either to impair or 
destroy it, and devoutly to wish and pray, that the overruling providence of God 
may bring about a result most promotive of his glory, and the best interest of the 
church of Christ in this place. We trust, that as individuals, as well as a church, 
we have already given sufficient pledges of our attachment to the doctrines which 
you have preached, and still continue to preach, as, in our view, consistent both 
with reason and the word of God, and as best calculated, by a divine blessing, to 
promote the temporal, spiritual, and eternal welfare of the people committed to 
your pastoral care. On your part also, sufficient pledges have been given, by 
a long, watchful, and diligent discharge of those duties, appertaining to the 
ministerial relation, as well as in all the other relations of life ; and we are per- 
suaded, that in all these relations, it has been your desire and aim to advance 
the cause of truth and of God, both by precept and by example. Impressed 



49 



with this conviction, we cannot refrain f:*om repeating our approbation of your 
past ministerial labors, in this ancient church of Christ, and pledging our future 
co-operation with you, in perpetuating the unity of its faith, in the bond of peace. 
However deeply we may regret that at this late period of your life, and of 
your ministry, any root of bitterness springing up, should trouble you — however 
ardently we should desire that your sun should set without a cloud ; we yet be- 
lieve, that it is the providence of God, which has otherwise ordered it, for the 
trial of faith, and the furtherance of hope; and that by his overruling hand, his 
own glory will be advanced, and the unity, peace, and safety of his church here 
promoted. 

Although the professed object of the memorialists in their first request to you 
was confined to occasional ministerial intercourse in the way of exchanges with 
neighbouring clergymen, yet the subsequent measures, proposed and adopted by 
the Parish, clearly show, that this was only a first step, in a long and systematic 
train of propositions, which have been adopted, all tending to the same object. 

[Here is given an abstract of the votes and doings of the Parish, which need not be repeated.] 

These facts, with many other considerations that might be urged, serve to 
show, that a radical change in your ministrations, if not in your opinions, was 
what could alone satisfy the memorialists. 

Under these circumstances, the members of this church have manifested a 
willingness, and have voted to co-operate with the Parish, at a late Parish meet- 
ing, holden for the purpose, to unite with them in calling a mutual Council for 
the object contemplated and specified in the warrant for calling said meeting. 
This offer on the part of the church was rejected under circumstances, not alto- 
ther favorable to a reconciliation of existing difficulties, and, as we believe, 
without a due degree of regard to the rights of the Church, as a party deeply 
concerned in the result. The denial by the Parish, of even a hearing of the 
Church, upon so important a subject, as that of the dismission of its pastor, and 
that any right existed in this body, as such, in relation to this subject, we confi- 
dently hope and believe, will never be sanctioned by a discriminating and en- 
lightened public. Whatever color may have been given to a principle of this 
kind, in any given case, we are at a loss to perceive its application in the case 
now under consideration. By an immemorial usage of this ancient church, and 
of most other churches in New England, the settlement or dismission of a minis- 
ter has been effected by the joint co-operation of the Parish and Church ; and 
the continuance of this principle or usage has been strongly recommended by 
the highest judicial tribunal of our Commonwealth. Moreover, it is recognized 
by the very charter, under which we hold a great proportion of the means of 
supporting the ministry in this place. The act incorporating the ministerial fund, 
belonging to this Parish, expiessly provides, that the income thereof shall be 
applied to such minister as shall be settled by the joint concurrence of the Parish 
and Church ; and we conceive, that this provision applies with equal force in 
the question of a dissolution of the connexion under this provision. Upon this 
view of the subject, we feel ourselves bound, in duty, to contend for those 
rights, which are derived from so ancient an usage as amounts to common law, 
as abo, from the express condition of our own enactments. 

From a careful and impartial view, therefore, of the whole subject, the under- 
signed, in behalf of the Church, feel constrained to believe, that a sense of duty, 
a regard to the honor, the interest, and the permanent good of the people under 
your pastoral care, have been the governing motives which have influenced you 
in the decisions made upon the several propositions, submitted by the Parish. 
We cannot close, without again expressing our sympathy, and assuring you of 
our support in any farther decisions, which the rights of pastor and church, and 
the interests of religion among us, may require of you to make. 



WILLIAM HILLIARD, ^| 
JAMES MUNROE. 

RICHARD H. DANA, ! 

S. F. SAWYER, f 

WILLIAM SAUNDERS, | 

JONA. C. PRENTISS. J 

Cambridge, Jan. 9, 1829. 



Com mittee. 



7 



50 



The foregoing Address, by a Committee of the church to the Rer. 
Dr. Holmes, dated Jan. 9, 1829, was first submitted to the inspection 
of the Parish, by the publication of " an Account of the Controversy " 
&c. by " the church.'' The address is signed by said Committee, 
who call themselves a Committe appointed by the church. Had the 
signers stated their appointment to have been by the majority of the 
then church, their language would have been more strictly correct. It is 
believed, that the whole number of the male members of that church 
was, at the above date, only 19, or at most not above 21, and that said 
majority consisted of not more than 16, and, probably, of only 14 
persons. This address is extremely well adapted to show the oppo- 
sition and hostility of the majority of the then Church to the Parish, 
both as to the principles and measures in any way relating to Dr. 
Holmes, as it contains censures of the principles and of the previous 
proceedings of the Parish in the controversy with Dr. Holmes, and 
approves his doctrines and justifies his past conduct towards the Parish, 
and promises him the support of that majority in future. It appears, 
that the members of said majority had before, as parishioners, expressed 
their disapprobation of said proceedings, and in the Address, on a 
review of their previous opinions, they adjudged them to be right. 
The persons composing said majority, although but an inconsiderable 
fraction of the parishioners, from the commencement of this contro- 
versy to the above date, had, as parishioners, constantly, zealously, 
and resolutely opposed the Parish and the memorialists in their meas- 
ures above stated in relation to Dr. Holmes. This little company of 
opponents, in the character of a Church, applied to the Parish, at the 
meeting holden on the 22d day of December, 1828, to be admitted, as 
a party distinct from the Parish, in the choice of the then proposed 
Ecclesiastical Council, notwithstanding their previous, constant, and 
bold opposition. What good reason could exist, in favor of the 
Parish's admitting them, as a body distinct from the Parish, when it 
was certain, from their preceding conduct, that they, if so admitted, 
would make all the resistance in their power to the attempts of the 
Parish to remedy the evils of which they complained, and would give 
Dr. Holmes all their assistance and supoort in his opposition to the 
principles and wishes of the Parish ? The Parish could not, without 
contravening their principles, violating the dictates of their judgment, 
and endangering their most valuable rights, admit the Church, as 
such, to be a party in the controversy, when they had numerous and 
strong reasons for believing, that such a hostile company would make 
great efforts to obstruct all their proceedings to regain their rights, 
and, if possible, defeat those rights. What Parish, under such circum- 
stances, would have admitted a Church, which had exhibited such 
principles, dispositions, and conduct, in relation to the Parish and its 
rights, and the means of recovering them, pursuant to their request, 
unless the law required such admission. The Church was not a legal 
party to the contract between the minister and the Parish, and they 
had no controversy with him, and therefore they had no legal right 
to be a party to this controversy. In said address it is stated, that " by 
an immemorial usage of this ancient church, and of most other churches 
in New England, the settlement or dismission of a minister has been 



51 



effected by the joint co-operation of the Parish and Church ; and the 
continuance of this principle, or usage, has been strongly recommended 
by the highest judicial tribunal of our Commonwealth, Moreover it 
is recognised by the very charter, under which we hold a great pro- 
portion of the means of supporting the ministry in this place. The 
Act incorporating the ministerial fund, belonging to this Parish, ex- 
pressly provides, that the income thereof shall be applied to such 
minister, as shall be settled by the joint concurrence of the Parish 
and Church : and we conceive, that this provision applies with equal force 
in the question of the dissolution of the connexion under this provision. 
Upon this view of the subject, we feel ourselves bound, in duty, to 
contend for those rights, which are derived from so ancient an usage as 
amounts to common law, as also from the express condition of our 
own enactments." Similar statements and arguments to the above 
cited part of said Address have been repeated by the majority of the 
Church, and although they are very inaccurate as to facts, law, and 
logic, yet they may deceive those who are not correctly informed. 
It is, therefore, expedient to attempt some corrections of such an im- 
posing statement and argument. The above reference to the recom- 
mendation by our Supreme Judicial Court, will appear in its true char- 
acter, as a mere recommendation, by examining Baker et al. v. Fales, 
in Mass. R. Vol. 16, p. 485. In this case (pp. 508, 509,) the Court 
say, " that the Parish have the constitutional right contended for, 
cannot be questioned by those who will pursue the clause of the third 
article of the Declaration of Rights, upon which this claim is assert- 
ed. It is there provided, • that the several towns, parishes, precincts, 
and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall at ail times have 
the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contract- 
ing with them for their support and maintenance.' This is too ex- 
plicit to admit of cavilling or to require explanation ; as every consti- 
tutional provision for the security of civil or religious liberty ought to 
be. All pre-existing laws or usages must bow before this fundamental 
expression of the public will ; and however convenient or useful it 
might be to continue the old form of electing or settling a minister ; 
whenever a Parish determines to assert its constitutional authority, 
there is no power in the state to oppose their claim." In the same 
case. (p. 520,) the Court say, " It has been suggested, that the 
usage of churches has been so general and constant, ever since >the 
adoption of the Constitution, that it may now be set up as law, al- 
though contrary to the Declaration of Rights. But constitutional 
privileges can never be lost by mere non-user. Neither individuals, nor 
aggregate bodies, nor the government itself, can prescribe against the 
rights of the citizen, with respect to any privilege secured by the 
constitution." On p. 510, of the above cited case, the Court, speak- 
ing of the usages and practice of the Congregational Churches in 
this State, in relation to the election and settlement of ministers, say, 
44 the constitution supersedes those usages, where the parties do not 
choose to observe them," &c. Many other citations could be made 
from the decisions of our Supreme Judicial Court to show, that the 
Court uniformly adhere to their opinions above expressed, and that, 
when their respect for an ancient ecclesiastical usage induces them to 



52 



recommend the continuance of it, they do not mean that such usage 
is part of the law, or that the churches by their usages can annul any 
part of the Constitution. It is idle to pretend, that any immemorial 
usage has been formed, since the adoption of the Constitution ; as 
there has not been sufficient time for that purpose. There never has 
been any usage established in this Parish, in relation to the dismission 
of a minister; and probably there has not been any such dismission 
in the Parish, at any time ; certainly there has been none since the 
adoption of the Constitution. The usage of one Parish is not evi- 
dence to prove, that the same usage exists in another ; and the usage 
of one Parish does not bind another. 

The Act above referred to, is " An Act to incorporate the Trustees 
of the Ministerial Fund in the First Parish in Cambridge," passed 
December 9, 1816. 

Any one who will examine sect. 10 of thai Act, and apply to it the 
established rules of law for construing statutes, or even the rules of 
common sense, will be convinced, that the Legislature did not intend, 
nor attempt, by that Act, to annul or alter the constitutional right of 
the Parish, in relation to the election, settlement, or dismission of a 
minister ; and the Proviso in that section demonstrates, that said Act 
cannot be applied to the controversy with Dr. Holmes, who was the 
minister of this Parish, at the time said Act was made. Said Proviso 
is in the following words, to wit : " Provided, that nothing herein con- 
tained shall be construed to alter, impair, vacate, or in any way affect 
the contract now existing between said Parish and their present min- 
ister ; but the proceeds of said fund, whenever the same shall be paid 
to him, shall be deemed to be in satisfaction of his salary, for the time 
being, so far as the same will apply to the discharge thereof." 

On the twenty-eighth of January, 1829, the Committee received the 
following 

COMMUNICATION FROM DR. HOLMES. 

To the Committee appointed by the First Parish in Cambridge, at a Meeting held 
on the twenty-second day of December, 1828, to propose to the Pastor to unite with 
them in calling a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council. 

Had a plain vote of the Parish, requesting my consent to a proposal for a 
mutual Ecclesiastical Council, been presented to me for consideration, an earlier 
answer might have been expected. I regret, that, after so much explanation and 
discussion, the subject is not well understood, or not fairly represented. The 
statements and the language of the preamble to the votes, were not justly to 
have been expected from a Parish, whose best interests I am conscious of having 
uniformly endeavored to promote for thirty-seven years ; and if I now trouble 
you with more explanation and discussion, " you have compelled me." 

Erroneous premises lead to false conclusions. If words are used either vague- 
ly or ambiguously, they may cause great and injurious mistakes. It was this 
consideration that led me to endeavor to explain the word " Calvinistic," used in 
former votes of the Parish, which appeared to me ambiguous, as there used to 
denote the principles of ministers of New England. In the last proceedings the 
term " Congregational" is used ; and the error and imputation connected with 
it, render an explanation necessary, not to my defence merely, but to the cause 
of truth. 

It is made an express ground of the votes passed by the Parish on this occa- 
sion, as stated in the preamble, " that for more than thirty years the pastor of the 
First Parish in Cambridge, following the example of his immediate predecessors 
in said office, was in the practice of frequent, liberal, and impartial exchanges 



53 



with clergymen of the Congregational order, but within three years last past has 
altogether'abandoned such liberal and impartial practice of exchanges," 

If the term " Congregational " designated now, as it did originally, the real or 
professed principles of ministers so denominated, it might be made a subject of 
complaint, were a Congregational minister, without special reason, to decline 
exchanges with ministers " of the Congregational order; " if, on the contrary, it 
does not now designate the real or professed principles of ministers of that order, 
no inference can be drawn from it concerning a minister's obligation with respect 
to exchanges. 

Congregational is a term which has a particular reference to church govern- 
ment, and does not determine the religious principles of a church bearing that 
name. It denotes an ecclesiastical polity, peculiar to itself, as distinguhhed from 
the polity of the Episcopal Church in England, of the Lutheran Church in Ger- 
many, of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and the Reformed Church in 
France, Switzerland, and Geneva. It is a term, which was adopted by the first 
churches of New England, to denote the reservation of rights and powers in the 
brethren of the church, which, in other churches, are conceded to bishops and 
convocations, to presbyteries and consistories. .Nothing is more evident, than that 
a church may be, in name and in fact, Congregational, and yet essentially differ in 
its religious principles from other Congregational churches. The first Congiega- 
tional churches of .New England agreed In the principles of their faith with the 
Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and the Reformed Churches in 
Europe; but it does not hence follow, nor is it true, that 'all the later Congre- 
gational churches have professed the same principles. 

This distinction in regard to churches, is strictly applicable to ministers, of the 
" Congregational order." Ministers may truly profess and maintain the eccle- 
siastical polity of the Congregational churches, while they disbelieve and discard 
the religious principles which were originally believed and professed by Congre- 
gational ministers, and which are still believed and professed by a very great 
proportion of the ministers of that order in New England. Such is the fact at 
the present time, — a fact which need not be proved, because it is openly avowed ; 
because it is assumed as a fact by the memorialists in their addresses to me upon 
the subject of exchanges with ministers of the " liberal denomination," as also by 
the Parish in its voles and proceedings, in language too explicit to be misunder- 
stood. If the declaration of the memorialists of their belief, that principles more 
liberal than ours are more rational and scriptural, were not sufficient to this purpose, 
the request of the Parish 1o exclude all ministers of the Calvinistic denomination 
from our pulpit, and from lectures in the Parish, places the fact beyond all question. 

Ministers of the " liberal denomination," then, are by their own choice, by the 
memorialists, and by the Parish itself, distinguished from ministers of the Calvin- 
istic denomination, that is to say, from ministers who essentially maintain the 
principles that were held by the first ministers of New England. Now, it is 
well known, that before and at the time of my settlement in the ministry in 
Cambridge, there was not a single church, nor a single minister, of the " Con- 
gregational order," in New England, that was openly and avowedly of the 
" liberal denomination.'" as the terra is now used and understood. My prede- 
cessors, therefore, furnished no precedent for the case in question ; for they 
never did exchange with ministers of the denomination that I am asked to ex- 
change with ; and the argument, erroneously drawn from their supposed exam- 
ple, falls to the ground. 

In regard to my practice until " the last three years," if it be not remembered, 
it ought to be known, that for several years preceding that period, my exchanges 
with individual ministers, with whom I had been accustomed to exchange, had 
been discontinued. Such exchanges were not sought on my part, because those 
ministers either openly avowed the principles of the liberal denomination, or 
gave satisfactory evidence of their having embraced them ; in some instances, 
they were not sought, on theirs. In these, and in later instances of such discon- 
tinuance, there was believed to be sufficient cause. Some of them may have 
been cases of casuistry, which the ministers concerned, and we only, could 
decide for ourselves. In forming my judgment, I may have erred ; if I erred on 
the uncharitable side, it was unconsciously ; if on the side of charity, "forgive 
me this wrong." 

Respectable Congregational ministers of these different denominations, appear 
to consider it neither consistent on their part, nor conducive to the good of the 



54 



churches and people under their pastoral care, to exchange public services, and 
introduce opposite and discordant doctrines into their respective pulpits ; and 
some of the most liberal have expressed a decided opinion, that such exchanges 
are not advisable. Ministers of this last description have admitted the principle 
of the limitation of exchanges, and have acted upon it. An instance is recollect- 
ed to have occurred in Boston, where a minister advanced in the pulpit religious 
opinions so much more liberal than those which were embraced by his brethren 
of that very denomination, that they discontinued their accustomed exchanges 
with him. The judgment of respected ministers of both the denominations re- 
ferred to upon this subject, was adverted to on a former occasion ; at d however 
parishioners may have estimated the judgment of their o\\ n Parish minister, it 
were to have been expected that they would have shown more regard and defer- 
ence to the judgment of those ministers whose religious sentiments are in 
accordance with their own. To what was observed on this subject, in my 
answer to the first memorial, I respectfully refer the Committee. What a clas- 
sical author said many centuries since, is applicable to this case : Sunt certi deni- 
que fines; " there are at length certain limits." What those limits are, it may 
be often difficult to define or discover ; but a minister of Christ is solemnly bound 
to search for them by the light of the word of God ; and so far as they are made 
plain to him, he ought religiously to regard them. 

The unreasonableness of asking or expecting a minister to have no exchanges 
or pastoral intercourse, with ministers of the same denomination as himself, and 
of the same principles which the church holds now, and always has held from 
its first formation, has been previously stated by your minister, who, on this 
point, refers you to his communication to the Parish, of the thirty-first of May. 
For a fair judgment in this case, he appeals to the tribunal of reason, and for 
precedents to all the churches in Christendom. 

For the ministrations in my pulpit I acknowledge myself responsible. During 
the recent period within which my exchanges have been more especially ex- 
cepted to, I have more constantly than usual performed the services of my own 
pulpit. When I did exchange them, I exchanged with worthy and respectable 
ministers of our own principles. Had I, in accordance with the request of the 
Parish, discontinued all exchanges with such ministers, I should, indeed, have 
departed from the immemorial usage of my predecessors, and introduced an 
innovation, which would have justly incurred the censure, passed in your pream- 
ble upon me and my brethren in the christian ministry. The characters of those 
ministers who have preached for us, by exchange or otherwise, the last three 
years, are too well known and respected, to require from me either apology or 
vindication. 

It ought to be observed, that in the copy of the vote communicated to me, the 
statement of the numbers voting, is no criterion of the state of the Parish in 
relation to the main question. The vote, I am well informed, was understood 
to be taken upon the preamble ; and it was upon that understanding of the 
motion, that the minority voted. Nor did those parishioners who disapproved 
the measures proposed in the notices for this Parish meeting, and for the pre- 
ceding meetings subsequent to the first, make any effort to collect their whole 
number ; on the contrary, it was their prevailing opinion, that it was not expe- 
dient for more to attend, than a competent number to sustain the memorials and 
remonstrances. This, I am assured, is also true with respect to ihe number of 
names subscribed to the memorial presented by parishioners to the Parish, at 
its last meeting. No effort was made to obtain the signatures of all who had 
expressed their disapprobation of the measures of the Parish. 

The church is well united. The votes at a church meeting, for presenting a 
memorial to the Parish, respecting a mutual council, and at a subsequent meet- 
ing, for an address to the pastor, approving his procceedings, and his ministra- 
tions, were nearly unanimous. The remonstrants of the seventeenth of May 
having expressed their opinion, that " were the females of the Parish allowed to 
speak, a majority of them would entreat you to forbear ;*' —the pastor may be 
permitted to subjoin an opinion, that, were the females of the Church, amounting 
to nearly eighty, allowed to speak, much more would they use the same lan- 
guage. In estimating our religious state, the feelings and principles of so con- 
siderable a portion of our stated religious assemblies, may not be overlooked. 

While on the subject of the interior and general state of the church and 
society under my pastoral care, I feel bound to say, that, so far from finding 



55 



causes of discouragement in my ministry, during three or four of the last years, 
I have found very much to encourage me. The public services of the Sabbath, 
it has appeared to me, have been attended by greater numbers, and with more 
solemnity. The last of these encouraging circumstances has been repeatedly 
observed by ministers from abroad, occasionally preaching here. It was this, 
with other indications of more than ordinary attention to the concerns of reli- 
gion, that induced me to have meetings in the week time., as we had previously 
had occasionally, for thirty years. The design of these meetings was, to pro- 
mote the unity and extension of the Church, and the improvement of its mem- 
bers in exemplary virtue and piety .: to instruct and assist the inquiring; and to 
encourage all who who were disposed to attend them. The number of attend- 
ants was, in a short time, so large, that it was found necessary to transfer the 
meetings from a private dwelling-house to the court-house. There, for the same 
religious purposes, lectures were held ; and they were so frequented, as to 
encourage their continuance to this time. During this period, a divine blessing 
appears to have attended our stated and occasional ministrations. The Church, 
now consisting of nearly one hundred members, has received considerable ad- 
ditions, and there are encouraging indications of its enlargement. Had the 
pastor disregarded the peculiar state of his flock at the time referred to; had 
he declined to meet the thoughtful and inquiring at any other time than on the 
Sabbath, or in any other place than in that of our stated solemnities; had he, 
out of the house of God, forborne all such religious exercises as he believed to 
be adapted, with the divine blessing, to bring serious inquirers, especially the 
young, " to the knowledae of the truth, that they might be saved ; " — he would 
not have acted the part of a faithful shepherd ; and if, through his unfaithfulness 
or neglect, any of his flock had perished, their blood would have been required 
at his hand by the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls. Had he, above all, 
discountenanced and opposed such religious inquiries, and such instructive and 
devotional exercises, as the case appeared evidently to require, and closed or 
obstructed the gate of the church to those who were " not far from the kingdom 
of God; " he would have incurred the ''wo ; ' pronounced by our divine Lord 
upon those faithless guides in the Jewish Church, who " took away the key of 
knowledge," and £i shut up the kindom of heaven against men ; ! ' who " entered 
not in themselves, nor suffered them who were entering, to go in." 

With this presentation of facts, too important to be concealed, and of explana- 
tions too material to be suppressed, I am entirely ready and disposed for a Mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council. It ought, however, to be a regular council, called and 
organized according to the immemorial usage of the churches of New England. 
To such a council it is, in my view, necessary that the Church under my pastoral 
care be represented. The Church, of their own accord, have asserted their right 
to have a part in a transaction of such importance, as the calling of a council for 
the purposes proposed by the Parish. They claim it by having been " a party 
in the settlement of the pastor;" by the ancient and general usage of Churches 
ai.d Parishes, to act in concert in the settlement and removal of a minister; — 
particularly by the invariable usage of this Church; and by the terms of the act, 
incorporating the trustees of the miHistry fund in this Parish, requiring the ap- 
propriation of the avails to such Congregational minister as shall be regularly 
ordained and settled in the Parish, " by the joint concurrence of the inhabitants 
and the church thereof. ' At the same time, the Church, in a spirit of kindness 
and conciliation, have, in their memorial, expressed themselves " as desirous as 
any of the Parish can feel, to adopt such measures as will tend to bring about 
an amicable adjustment of all difficulties, — Provided, that the other inhabitants 
of said Parish, according to general usage, unite with said Church and their pas- 
tor, in calling a mutual council." A tespectable number of parishioners, some 
of whom are not members of the Church, have, in a memorial presented to the 
Parish, the same view of the subject, and expressed their desire that the Church 
may be represented in the proposed Council. 

Called as I was into the ministry here, by the distinct and separate, yet con- 
current invitation of the Church and of the Parish, and feeling, as I do and ought 
to feel, a solemn responsibility for my pastoral care of the Church, as well 
as for a sacred regard to its rights and privileges, I am not at liberty either to 
overlook or to interfere with its equitable claims. 

To the proposal of the Parish for a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, if regularly 
called, according to the usage of our churches, and to the express desires of the 



Church and of oilier respected parishioner . no mernher of fix; Church or Parish more 

readily consents than 

Your Pastor, 

Cambridge, 23 January, 1829. A. HOLMES. 

I ri the preceding paper, it. is stated by Dr. Holmes, that 

" II ought to ho oh eived, that in the co|iy of the vote communicated to me, the 
Statement of the numbers voting i s no criterion of the rtate of the Parish in relation 
to the main question. Tfee vote, I arn well informed, was understood to be taken 
Upon the preamble ; and it was upon that understanding of the motion that the mi- 
nority voted." 

ill reply to the statements hen; made, we cannot forbear observing, 
that wo know of no better " criterion," by which to ascertain "the 

state of the Parish/' in relation to the proposition before them, than 
the vote--: actually given by those present, and acting at the meeting. 

How it could have been " understood," that " the vote was to be taken 
on the preamble" we cannot perceive. There was considerable discus- 
sion as to the merits of the; preamble and the propriety of adopting it; 
and before the question was taken, the vote-, appointing a committee 
to propose a Mutual Council, &,o. as adopted, was written on the paper, 
containing the preamble, and immediately following the same, and the 
whole - preamble and motion — was then read and offered as a distinct 
proposition^ for the consideration of the meeting. The question, thus 
distinctly stated, was immediately followed by the vote, on which fifty- 
five were for the affirmative, and fourteen for the negative. From the 
above statement of facts, and we challenge a denial of them, let it 
be decided, whether the friends of Dr. Holmes could have misunder- 
stood the proposition before them. 

We were a little surprised at the declaration that the " parishioners, 
who disapproved the measures proposed," for that "meeting," and the 
" preceding meetings subsequent to the first," ma.de no ''-effort to collect 
their whole number we had not before imagined that any exertions, 
in any stage of the controversy, from the presentation of the first, memo- 
rial, to the meeting referred to, to enlist, imbody, and bring into ac- 
tion, all who could, be brought to act with the minority, were forborne. 
In respect to obtaining signatures to remonstrances, and procuring 
attendance at parochial meetings, the leaders of the minority are not 
liable tp the imputation of warn, of zeal or perseverance. 

To the preceding communication, on the 9th of February last, the 
Committee transmitted to Dr. Holmes, the following reply : 

Rev. Dr. Holme, Sir, 

The Committee were happy to find hy your reply to their communication, recived 
the 2Hlh oil. thai you acquiesced in their proposal lor a mutual council ; though you 
seemed to consider that a council would not. he regularly called without, the inter- 
vention of the Church. 

Vou must he aware, Sir, that this auhjeel was fully discussed at the last Parish 
meeting, and if. was then der ided, by a very large majority, that the Parish could 
not consider the Church as a party in this affair. Deriving our authority from the 
Parish, we must of course be governed hy their decision, and we have no power of 

proposing a Mutual Council, except on the terms prescribed hy their vote. Nad 
wo the power, however, ive do not hesitate to state, that our principles would not 

permit us to adopt any other course, than that prescribed hy the Parish. 

We are at a loss, Sir, lo conceive how the Church can act as a party in this case. 
They have no grounds of complaint against the pastor ; on the contrary, they have 
declared, by the report of their committee, at their lastchuich meeting, that they 
fully approved of his conduct. Neither have they any complaint against the Parish. 



0 I 



We hope, therefore, Sir, that you will reconsider your former opinion on this sub- 
ject, and, if you are then disposed to meet our proposal for a mutual council, on the 
only terms which the vote of the Parish permits us to offer you, we will then thank 
you, Sir. to name the number you wish the council to consist of, or to appoint an 
early day to confer with us on the subject. Whatever you may decide on, we have 
to request that your answer may he explicit and conclusive. 

If, Sir, we have not replied to the statements in your answer, it is because we 
considered they had been fully discussed in the previous communications between 
yourself and the Parish, and a majority of the parishioners, at divers times, and if 
there was any new matter introduced, we could not see its bearing on the business 
before us, which was simply, to propose to you a mutual council. If, Sir, you 
should think proper to avail yourself of the statements made in your answer on any 
future occasion, we shall be ready to meet them with the consideration they merit, 
whether before a mutual council, or any other tribunal. 

Respectfully, Sir, in behalf of the Committee, 

Cambridge, Feb. 9th, 1S29. WILLIAM J, WHIPPLE, Clerk, 

On the 14th of February the Committee were presented with the 
following answer. 

To the Committee appointed to propose to the Pastor a Mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council. 

Ge.mlemex, 

A regular Ecclesiastical Council, it is to be presumed, is what we mutually desire. 
Of what is necessary to the formation of such a council, I have already given you my 
deliberate opinion, and the reasons for it. The consent to a regular mutual council, 
as expressed in my last communication to you, is believed to be clear and explicit ; 
and I refer you to that paper, as containing the answer of, 

Gentlemen, 

Yours respectfully, 

Cambridge, 14 Feb. 1S29. A. HOLMES. 

This was followed, on the 9th of March, by a communication from 
the Committee to Dr. Holmes, which is here given. 

To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the Church in the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge, 
Sir, 

An attested copy of the record of the votes, passed by the inhabitants of said Par- 
ish, at their meeting, held on the 22d day of December, 182S, was transmitted to 
you by the Clerk of said Parish, very soon after that meeting. We presume that you 
perfectly understood from examining those votes, that said Paiish had determined to 
propose to you a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes mentioned in said 
votes, and, on the memorial of your Church, mentioned in one of said votes, had re- 
fused to grant the prayer in that memorial, that the Church might be admitted as a 
party in electing that council, and in the trial before it. In our first communication to 
you, as a Committee of said Parish, for the purposes mentioned in said votes, among 
other things, we requested you to inform us, whether you would agree to join with 
us in electing a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes above mentioned, and 
we anticipated receiving from you a plain and positive answer, that you would, or 
would not; join us, in the election of such a council, as we proposed to you; in the 
choice of which your Church would not be recognised as a party. Instead of giving 
us a definite answer, in relation to the council proposed by us, in your answer, dated 
Jan. 23th, 1829, you have written a dissertation to show what is a regular Ecclesias- 
tical Council, and that your Church has a right to be a party in electing such coun- 
cil and in the trial before it, and that you are ready to agree to a regular Ecclesiastical 
Council, according to your definition or description of it ; but you wholly omitted 
to answer our inquiry, and in your answer, you have not said, that you would, 
or would not, join us, in electing such a council, as we, pursuant to said votes, had 
proposed to you. Since the receipt of your answer above mentioned, in our com- 
munication, addressed to you, dated the 9th Feb. A. D. 1829, we stated to you, 
among other things, that your Church could not be admitted as a party in relation to 
the proposed council, and gave you our reasons for rejecting the Church as such 
party, and requested you to inform us, whether you, without your Church, would 
concur with us, in electing such mutual Ecclesiastical Council, as we had proposed 
to you. In your reply to the last mentioned communication, made by us to you, 
which reply is dated, Feb. 14th, 1329, you decline giving an answer, such as we re- 



58 



quested in our last mentioned communication to you, and refer us to " the consent to a 
regular mutual council, as exprsssed in" your then " last communication to us." That 
consent is confined strictly ' s to a regular mutual council" according to your said defi- 
nition, or description, of it ; and we think it impossible for you, Sir, or any other per- 
son, to find in the communication to which you have referred us, for your answer, 
any answer to the inquiry we made of you, and you have not yet told us, whether 
you, without your Church, will, or will not, concur with us, in electing such mutual 
council, as we proposed to you, as aforesaid, pursuant to the aforesaid votes. We 
proposed to you a mutual council, to be elected by you and by us, as such commit- 
tee as aforesaid ; ycu have stated to us, that, in your opinion, " a regular mutual Eccle- 
siastical Council must be elected by you, by us, as such committee, and by your 
Church, and we proposed to you a council to be elected in the former mode, and you 
have expressed to us your consent to a council to be elected in the latter mode; that 
is, we proposed to you one subject, and you confined your answer to another. 
When you shall have re-examined your communications to us, we presume that you 
will be willing to inform us, in the most perspicuous and definite manner, whether you, 
without your Church, will, or will not, meet us, as such committee as aforesaid, and 
concur with us, in electing a mutual Ecclesiastical Council for the puiposes above men- 
tioned. If you conclude, Sir, to concur with us in electing such mutual council, as 
we have proposed to you, as soon as you shall have communicated to us your con- 
sent to that, we will, as soon as practicable, propose to you the time and place of a 
meeting for that purpose. 

At a meeting of the committee of the First Parish in Cambridge, appointed on the 
22d day of Dec. last past, held March 5, 1829, it was voted, that a copy of the fore- 
going communication be transmitted to Rev. Dr. Holmes. 

Attest, WILLIAM J WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Committee. 

On the 14th of March Dr. Holmes communicated to the Committee 
the following answer : 

To the Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge. 
Gentlemen, 

It has uniformly been my intention to' give an affirmative answer, and no other, to 
the proposal of the Parish for a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, "if regularly called, 
according to the usage of our churches, and to the express desires of the church and 
other respected parishioners." If my answer was not fair and equitable, I have yet 
to learn the first principles of moral and religious obligation; if it is not clear and in- 
telligible, I despair of making it so by note or comment. It was such an answer as, 
in my apprehension, any pastor of a church, having a proper sense of his obligations 
to his church and people, and to the divine Head of the church, would feel himself 
bound to give ; and if the committee do not receive it, they " interfere with" my "con- 
victions of duty and rights of conscience." I must, therefore, again refer you, Gen- 
tlemen of the committee, to my communication of the 28th of January, for the 
answer of 

Yours respectfully, 

Cambridge, 14 March, 1829. A. HOLMES. 

The correspondence between the parties was continued as follows, 
viz. 

Committee to Dr. Holmes. 
To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the First Parish in Cambridge. 
. Sir, 

The committee, appointed by said Parish to propose to you a mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council, met yesterday, and Voted, to request you to inform them, in what way and 
manner, and in what degree, you consider said Parish bound, by the general eccle- 
siastical usage, to unite w ith your Church, in relation to the proposed council, both as 
to the election of that council, and the hearing of our case before it. The Church have 
claimed rights, in relation to the proposed council, and you have made a corresponding 
claim, in their behalf, but that claim has not been defined in their memorial to said Par- 
ish, nor in the communications, which we have received from you. You, Sir, have stat- 
ed to us, that the concurrence of your Church is necessary to the regularity of the pro- 
posed council ; but you have not stated to us in what that concurrence consists. You 
will oblige us by informing us definitely what are the rights, claimed by your Church, in 
this case,to which you consider them entitled by said usage ; whether they have a right 



59 



in the election ot said council, and what right; whether they, separately from you, claim 
a right to elect members of such council ; or whether you and they act together in the 
election and jointly elect only one half of the members of such council ; or whether 
you, and they, together, acting- jointly or separately, claim a right to elect two thirds 
of said members ; and whether, in the hearing before the proposed council, they 
claim a right only to act jointly with you, or a right to appear and act separately from 
you and the Parish. It appears to be important, at this time, that the committee of 
the Parish and your Church should understand accurately what are the particular 
rights claimed by your Church, in relation to the proposed council, so far as they wish, 
or intend, to act as a Church, separately from the Parish. 

Per order of said Committee, 
Cambridge, March 18, 1829. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE. 

Reply. 

To the Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge. 
Gentlemen, 

Your last communication to me, containing interrogatories concerning the 
Church, was communicated to Ihe Church, and the Church's committee, to whom 
it was referred, made the enclosed report, which was unanimously adopted. 
Addressed as it is to me, with liberty to make such use of it as I might think 
proper, I transmit it to you, Gentlemen, and am, 

Yours respectfully, 

Cambridge, 26 March, 1829. A. HOLMES. 

COPY OF THE REPOPvT ABOVE REFERRED TO AS " ENCLOSED " IN THE 

FOREGOING. 

The First Church in Cambridge to their Rev. and Beloved Pastor, A. Holmes, D D. 
Rev. and Dear Sir, 
The communication made to you, on the 18th of this month, by the Parish 
committee appointed to confer with you upon the calling of a Mutual Ecclesias- 
tical Council, and laid before us by you, on the 22d of this month, has been 
duly considered. 

We are not aware, Sir, of more than one way in which the only question in 
that communication, which is material, and requiring present attention, could 
hrve been answered by you, had you felt authorized to reply to it. But as your 
office of pastor does not oblige, or even empower you so to do, without first 
advising with the church, — as questions incidental to our rights are contained in 
the communication, and you are desired to go into particular definitions and 
explanations of these incidental matters, and of whatever may be included in 
our claim to have a concurrent voice in the calling of a mutual ecclesiastical 
council, and as you are requested to sfrite in what ' way ' the Church, in the exer- 
cise of its rights, may see fit to appear before that council, and in what " manner 
and degree " to present and urge those rights, the propriety and expediency of 
your laying the communication before us, and of our addressing you at this time, 
are perfectly obvious. 

In the memorial of (his Church, presented at the Parish meeting of the 22d of 
December last, the Church goes upon its right to a concurrent voice in the calling 
of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, and does not simply, or mainly, take the 
course of " suggesting the expediency of such concurrence," as stated in the 
record of the doings of that meeting ; of which fact, however, the Parish com- 
mittee seem now aware, as in this, their last communication to you, now before 
us, they say, " The Church have claimed rights in relation to the proposed coun- 
cil, and you have made a corresponding claim on their behalf;"' which remark 
must refer to the before mentioned memorial, as it is the only communication 
ever made by the Church to the Parish. 

Our memorial, then, being sufficiently distinct upon this point, even had we sup- 
posed the Parish thought our right to include larger powers than it actually did 
include, and, therefore, considered by them a greater obstacle in their way, 
than it in fact was, we should have esteemed it indecorous towards the Parish, 
to have entered into explanations, as inducements with them to allow us the 



60 



free exercise of our mere right ; for this would have been presupposing a willing- 
ness on their part to weigh expediency against principle. 

It Avas not necessary, therefore, and it would hardly have been proper, along 
with the simple assertion of our existence as a Church having a right to a con- 
current voice in the calling of a council, to have gone into all the definitions of 
that right, or the " way, manner, and degree/' in which it might be thought best 
that right should be exercised. 

Tn relation to the questions put to you in the communication before us, it will 
be recollected, Sir, that the Parish have hitherto refused to acknowledge our 
existence as a body having any concern in the matters now in agitation — that 
they even declined recognising us so far as to allow our memorial to them, urg- 
ing our right, to go upon the Parish files. And, Sir, in the communications of 
the Parish committee to you, which at the request of our committee, you have 
obligingly submitted to our perusal, that we might act more understanding^ 
upon the subject, we find it said in that of the 9th of February last, — " You must 
be aware, Sir, that this subject was fully discussed at the last Parish meeting, 
and it was then decided, by a very large majority, that the Parish could not con- 
sider the Church as a party to this affair. Deriving our authority from the Par- 
ish, we must of course be governed by their decisions, and we have no power 
of proposing a mutual council, except on the terms prescribed by their vote. 
Had we the power, however, we do not hesitate to state that our principles 
would not permit us to adopt any other course than that prescribed by the Par- 
ish." And in their communication made so late as the 5th of the present month, 
referring you to the above communication, they continue, — u In our communi- 
cation addressed to you, dated the 9th of February, A. D. 1829, we stated to 
you among other things, that your Church could not be admitted as a party, in 
relation to the proposed council, and gave you our reasons for rejecting the 
Church as such party." 

Under these circumstances, it would evidently be a sufficient reply, Sir, to the 
questions from the Parish committee, to inquire for what object they could be 
put, or to what purpose they could be answered, so long as the very existence 
of the body, as to the subject to which they relate, is not admitted by the Parish 
or by the very committee putting the questions, but, on the contrary, has been 
distinctly denied by both, — and while, too, the Parish committee declare they 
are not anthorized by the Parish to recognise the church ? 

But, Sir, anxious as we are, and ever have been, that all occasion of delay or 
difficulty should be taken out of the way, we prefer passing by this very peculiar 
state of the circumstances, and going into the subject, so far as we can with any 
propriety at this time. 

We are at a loss to conjecture how the Parish committee could ever have im- 
agined that church rights and usages could give to any church a power which 
would take from the complaining party a right of equal representation in a mu- 
tual ecclesiastical council, and how our claim to a concurrent voice with one of 
the parties in the calling of such council, could ever have been supposed by them 
to be the assertion of a right to deprive them of their one half of such represen- 
tation. To us it seems to contradict the very term mutual ; and were it not that 
the question has been just put to you by that committee with so apparent seri- 
ousness, had we inquired of them, whether they entertained such an opinion, 
we should have looked for no other answer, than a mere expression of surprise. 
And it is with the greatest difficulty that we can bring ourselves to believe, that 
either you or we should have been thought to have laid claim to such powers 
and rights. We cannot find that either of us, in speaking of our several rights, 
has used expressions that could lead to so singular a supposition. On the other 
hand, so far as our language may at all relate to the point, it implies the con- 
trary, and asks no more than a concurrent voice with one of the parlies ; and we 
have, of necessity, from the beginning, and till this last communication of the 
Parish committee, considered the language of both Parish and committee to be — 
" We neither acknowledge nor know any church in this matter." If, then, the 
committee have labored under such a mistake, we have only to regret that it 
should have been brought to light, for the first time, at this late day ; and we 
shall regret its late disclosure still more, if it has, in fact, been the occasion of delay 
in settling difficulties which both you and we have long sincerely desired to 
have brought regularly and speedily to a close. As to the remaining questions 
proposed by the Parish committee, it appears to us that they relate to matters of 



61 



merely mutual agreement and accommodation, and not at all to concern the 
right of the church to a concurrent voice in the calling of a mutual ecclesiastical 
council, and that answers to them must, more or less, take their character from 
the course which the Parish committee may see fit to pursue in their future pro- 
ceedings. It would, therefore, be untimely and improper to reply to them here. 
We would remind you, Sir, that the committee (of which Deacon Hilliard is 
chairman) chosen by the Church, on the 21st of December last, to present our 
memorial, herein referred to, which was laid before the Parish meeting on the 
22d of the same month, were constituted with full powers to enter into agree- 
ments and to make all necessary arrangements with the Parish, or its committee, 
in relation to the calling of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, and that they are 
still a commitlee for that purpose. 

We must close, Sir, with saying, that if the Parish committee shall, at any 
time, express to us a readiness to communicate with us as a church having a 
concurrent voice in the calling of a mutual ecclesiastical council, they will»find 
us with the same feelings and views as we declared ourselves to entertain, in 
our memorial to the Parish, and ready, through our committee, to join with 
them, in so far as said Parish committee is authorized, in doing all in our power 
to bring subsisting difficulties to a regular and proper close, and that at as little 
expense, and in as short a time as possible, and in a true spirit of accommoda- 
tion. 

With liberty to make such use of this communication as you may deem fitting 
and expedient, we remain respectfully yours, 

WILLIAM HILLIARD, ] 

JAMES MUNROE, 

RICHARD H. DANA, } Commitlee. 

S. F. SAWYER, 

JON A. C. PREMISS, J 

Cambridge, March 24/A, 1829. 

Committee to Dr. Holmes. 

To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Paslor of the First Parish in Cambridge. 

Sir, — We, the committee of said Parish, have received your letter of the 26th 
of March last, enclosing a communication to you from the Church in this Parish, 
as your answer to our letter to you of the 18th of that month. 

Our last communication to you was suggested by a desire, on our part, to 
avoid a misunderstanding of the views, entertained by you, respecting the rights 
and agency, to which you considered said Church entitled, in the election of the 
mutual ecclesiastical council, proposed by us, as such committee, to you, as 
pastor of said Parish, for the purpose of terminating the difficulties between you 
and said Parish. 

In the communication of said Church to you, which you have sent to us, as 
your answer, it is said, that said church claims " no more than a concurrent 
voice with one of the parties." If by this is meant, that the church is not to be 
considered, in itself, a party, in relation to said proposed Council and to the case 
between you and said Parish, proposed for the consideration and decision of 
said council, but only claims a right to be consulted by you, as its minister, and 
to give its advice, when asked, or to furnish assistance to you, when its aid is 
requested by you, in relation to the election of that council, or in any other 
matter, said Parish has no inclination, nor any right, probably, to object. To 
us, as such committee of said Parish, is certainly not committed ihe power, or 
right, of determining of whom you, Rev Sir, shall take either advice, or assist- 
ance. In your communication of the 14lh of March last to this committee, you 
say, "it has been uniformly my intention to give an affirmative answer, and no 
other, to the proposal of the Parish for a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, ' if regu- 
larly called according to the usage of our churches, and to the express desires of 
the Church and other respected parishioners.' " 

"W e, as such committee as aforesaid, have already several times proposed to 
you, Rev. Sir, a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, to be elected by us, as such com- 
mittee of said Parish, on one part, and by you, as such pastor as aforesaid, on 
the other, for the purposes heretofore expressed in said proposals and above 
mentioned ; and we anticipated, Sir, that you would, without doubt, or hesita- 



62 



tion, inform us, whether you would accept said proposal by us, or whether you 
declined accepting it. 

We, as such Committee as aforesaid of said Parish, now repeat and renew our 
former proposals to you, for such Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes 
expressed in said proposals, and above mentioned ; to be elected as lastly above 
mentioned ; you and said Parish being the only parties to the same ; and respect- 
fully request you to give us an explicit answer to this renewed proposal. 

We, as such Committee, as aforesaid, are ready to meet you, at any convenient 
time and place to be named by you, for the purpose of eleciing the Council 
herein proposed to you, if you accede to the proposal ; but if you decline it, 
we, as such Committee, as aforesaid, shall, as soon as convenient, in discharge 
of our duty to said Parish, elect and call an ex parte Council, for the purposes 
aforesaid, that the complaints of said Parish against you may be fully heard and 
considered by such Council, and their result be obtained thereon. 

Per order of said Committee, 
Cambridge, April 1, 1629. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE. 

Dr. Holmes to the Committee. 

To the Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge. 
Gentlemen, 

The paper which I last enclosed to you relating .to your interrogatories con- 
cerning the rights of the Church, was not, as you have entitled it, my answer to 
those interrogatories, but the statement of the Church. The Church have as- 
serted their right to take a part in the proposed measure of a mutual Ecclesias- 
tical Council, and assigned their reasons ; and with their rights, as I early observed 
to you, I am not at liberty to interfere. By the paper lately transmitted to you, 
Gentlemen, you distinctly perceive that the Church have never claimed a right, 
that would interfere with your right to elect one half of the proposed Council. 
This, it appears, was the only thing which the Church considered as essential to 
be stated, in reply to your inquiries. 

The doubtful manner in which — in your letter of April 1st — you speak of what 
may be meant by a concurrent voice of the Church, rendered it proper lor me, 
in order to avoid a misunderstanding of their views, to communicate your letter 
to the Committee of the Church. The answer of the Committee, though ad- 
dressed to me, properly belongs to you, Gentlemen, and to you I accordingly 
enclose it. 1 have only to observe upon it, that the proposal of the Church res- 
pecting the calling of a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, contained in the enclosed 
paper, meets my approbation ; and that, in accordance with it, 1 am prepared, 
at any time, to unite with the Committee of the Parish in calling such a Coun- 
cil. 

If in this procedure, Gentlemen of the Committee, you are not authorized to 
recognise the Church, your constituents, if they see fit, can doubtless give you 
such authority. I therefore request you to communicate to the Parish my Answer 
of the 28th of January, with the enclosed, for their consideration, and am 

Gentlemen, 

Yours, respectfully, 
Cambridge, 8 April, 1829. A. HOLMES. 

COPY OF THE PAPER ENCLOSED IN THE PRECEDING LETTER. 
To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the First Church in Cambridge. 
Rev. and Dear Sir, 
You having laid before us a communication from the Parish Committee to 
you, bearing date the 1st of this month, in consequence of the Committee's 
having, in that communication, expressed a doubt as to the meaning of that part 
of our letter to you of the 24th of March last, in which we claim a right to a 
concurrent voice with one of the parties in the calling of a Mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council — in order to put our meaning beyond all doubt in the minds of that 
Committee, we beg leave to observe, that we did mean more than the language 
of the Committee seems to imply, when they say, — " In the communication of 
said Church to you, which you have sent to us, as your answer, it is said, that 



63 



said Charch claims 1 no more than a concurrent voice with one of the parties.' 
If by this is meant, that the Church is not to be considered, in itself, a party, 
in relation to said proposed Council, and to the case between you and said 
Parish, proposed for the consideration and decision of said Council, but only 
claims a ri*ht to be consulted by you, as its minister, and to give its advice, when 
asked, or to furnish assistance to you, when its aid is requested by you, in rela- 
tion to the election of that Council, or in any other matter, said Parish has no 
inclination, nor any right, probably, to object. To us, as such Committee of said 
Parish, is certainly not committed the power, or right, of determining of whom 
you. Rev. Sir, shall take either advice or assistance. 7 ' 

And we, the Church Committee, would now state, on the point of the calling 
of a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, that the Church claim that their committee, in 
concurrence with you, their pastor, should select, with you, one half of the Council, 
the Parish Committee selecting the other half. And to make our meaning per- 
fectly clear, we would further say, that, as to the mode of calling said Council, 
the church would be sathfieu, if the half selected by you and the Church Com- 
mittee, be invited by letters signed by you, as pastor, and the Church Committee, 
and the half selected by the Parish Committee, be invited by letters signed by 
the Parish Committee, or, if the Parish Committee prefer it, that all selected (in- 
cluding those selected by you and the Church Committee, on the one part, and 
those selected by the Parish Committee, on the other part) be invited by letters 
signed unitedly by you, as Pastor, by the Church Committee, and by the Parish 
Committee. 

With liberty to make such use of this letter as you may deem proper, we re- 
main, 

Rev. and Dear Sir, Yours, 

WILLIAM HILLIARD. } 
JAMES MIWROE. j Committee 
RICHARD H. DANA. I of the 
SAMUEL F. SAWYER, | Church, 
JONA. C PRENTISS. J 

Cambridge, April Hth, 1S29. 

The Committee to Dr. Holmes. 
To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of the First Parish in Cambridge. , 

Sir, — The Committee of said Parish have received your communication of 
the Sth of April instant, enclosing a communication to you from a Committee of 
the First Church in Cambridge, under date of the 7th of said month. 

After the repeated attempts on the part of the Parish Committee to obtain 
from yoa an explicit and direct reply to their proposition for a Mutual Ecclesi- 
astical Council, they confidently expected a definite and decisive answer to their 
communication of April 1st. 

After their explicit declaration under the last mentioned date, they consider 
you as refusing to a^ree to their proposal for such Council; and, agreeably to 
their statement in their last communication to you, they will proceed to the 
choice of an ex parte Council, to hear and decide on the complaints of the 
Parish. 

They decline applying to the Parish for a grant of further authority to the 
Committee, because the claim of the Church to be a party in calling a Council 
has been already very fully discussed, deliberately considered, and decided by 
the Parish, — and because they believe there is nothing in either or both of the 
papers yoa wish communicated, to induce the Parish to alter their decision so 
fully expressed on this subject. 

Per order of the Committee of said Parish, 
Cambridge, April 13ft, 1329. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE. 

On a view and accurate examination of the foregoing correspond- 
ence between the Committee and Dr. Holmes, relative to the Mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council several times proposed to him by the Committee, 
to be elected by the Committee, in behalf of the Parish, on one part, 
and by Dr. Holmes, on the other part ; the intelligent, candid, and 
impartial members of the community will easily decide, whether it is 



64 

not true, that Dr. Holmes refused to join said Committee in the elec- 
tion of such Council, in the manner proposed to him ? 

The law will undoubtedly examine and consider not only all the 
words, but all the actions and omissions of Dr. Holmes, connected 
with said correspondence, and fully understand them, according to- 
the principles of reason and the rules of law, and will decide the 
above question concerning Dr. Holmes' refusal, upon a fair and full 
understanding of all the facts and circumstances of the case. Dr* 
Holmes will not be permitted to give to his language and actions, or 
omissions, a meaning invented by himself, and peculiar to his own mind, 
and such as neither the Committee, nor any other persons, could 
understand from them, or would have a right to attach to them. If a 
proposal is made to a man, the modes in which he can refuse or neg- 
lect to accept that proposal, are extremely numerous ; and the par- 
ticular mode is unimportant, if it, on the whole, amounts to a refusal 
or neglect. The refusal may be by words, actions, or omissions. 

If the reader, on examining Dr. Holmes' papers, included in this 
pamphlet, should entertain a shadow of doubt concerning the Doctor's 
opinion of the rights of churches, as to the election &c. of pastors, 
Dr. Holmes' Convention Sermon, delivered, before the Convention, 
in Boston, May 2?th, 1819, contains his opinions, arguments, &c 
in relation to those rights. How far Dr. Holmes harmonises with 
" our State Constitution," and with the decisions of our Supreme Ju- 
dicial Court, will be seen by reading pages 32, 33, and 34 of that 
sermon. 

Election of Ex parte Council. 

M a meeting of the Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge, appointed on the 
22d of December, 1829, in relation to an Ecclesiastical Council, held April l6lh T 
1829 :— 

Whereas the Rev. Dr. Holmes has refused to accept the proposal for a Mu- 
tual Ecclesiastical Council made to him by this Committee, pursuant to authority 
from said Parish, 

Voted, That the Committee now proceed to elect an ex parte Council to hear 
and advise in relation to the controversies and difficulties existing between the 
Rev. Dr. Holmes and said Parish. 

Voted, That said Gouncil be composed of a Pastor and Delegate from each of 
seven Churches. 

Voted, That letters missive, signed by the Committee, be addressed to 
The Church in Concord under the pastoral care of Rev. Ezra Ripley, 1). D. 
The Church in Worcester " " " Rev. Aaron Bancroft, D. D. 

The Church in Lancaster " " " Rev. Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. 

The Church in Roxbury " " " Rev. Eliphalet Porter, D. D. 

The Church in Salem " " " Rev. James Flint, D. D. 

The Church in Portland " " " Rev. Ichabod Nichols, D. D. 

The Church in Portsmouth " " " Rev. Nathan Parker, D. D. 

requesting the attendance of said Churches, by their Pastor and a Delegate from 
each, as members of an Ecclesiastical Council, to be held on the 19th day of May 
next. 

Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Committee. 

Pursuant to said vote, letters missive were addressed, on the 16th 
of April, 1829, by said committee, to the several gentlemen named in 
said vote, requesting the attendance of the several churches therein 
named, by the pastor and a delegate from each church, as members 



65 



of an Ecclesiastical Council, to be held at the Old Court House in 
the First Parish in Cambridge, on Tuesday, the ninteenth day of May, 
A. D. 1829, at 10 o'clock, A. M., for the purposes mentioned in said 
vote. 

On the 9th of May, 1829, the committee made the following 
Communication to Dr. Holmes. 

To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, Pastor of ihc First Parish in Cambridge. 

Sir, — I am directed by the committee of said Parish to make known to you 
that said committee have elected and invited the Rev. Dr. Ripley of Concord, 
Rev. Dr. Thayer of Lancaster, Rev. Dr. Bancroft of Worcester, Rev. Dr. Porter 
of Roxbury, Rev. Dr. Flint of Salem, Rev. Dr. Parker of Portsmouth, and Rev. 
Dr. Nichols of Portland, together with a delegate from each of their respective 
churches, to compose an ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, to assemble at the Old 
Court House in Cambridge, on the nineteenth day of May instant, at ten o'clock, 
A. M., for the purposes expressed in the introduction to the enclosed paper: — - 
I am also directed to transmit to you a copy of the Complaint by said Parish, 
through their committee, which said committee propose to exhibit to said coun- 
cil — which is enclosed herein. Very respectfully, 

Your obed't serv't, 

WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Cambridge, May 9th, 1829. in behalf of said Committee. 

Enclosed in the last mentioned communication was a copy of the 
following 

Specification of the Causes of Compliant. 

First Parish in Cambridge vs. Rev. Abiel Holmes, D. D. as Pastor of said 

Parish. 

To the Ecclesiastical Council, elected and invited by the First Parish in Cambridge, 
through the agency of their Committee, duly chosen and appointed by said Parish 
for that purpose, to hear, and advise in relation to the controversies and difficul- 
ties existing between said Parish and the Rev. Dr. Holmes, their Pastor, in 
relation to his pastoral conduct in said Parish : — 

Said committee feel a great responsibility, in executing the authority given 
them, and in performing the duties, assigned them by said Parish. They are 
deeply impressed by the conviction, that the peace, harmony, and prosperity, 
the infinitely important moral and religious rights and duties, of said Parish, 
absolutely require, that the various causes of complaint, which said Parish con- 
ceive they have, in a legal, moral, and religious view, against their said Pastor, 
should be impartially and fully considered, and, if possible, remedied, or removed 
and brought to a wise and speedy termination, or that the pastoral relation of the 
Rev. Dr. Holmes to said Parish should be dissolved. Said Parish, in the preamble 
to their vote passed the 22d day of December, A. D. 182S, by which they determined 
to appoint said committee, have stated, in general terms, some of the principal 
causes of complaint, against their said Pastor, and reserved the right to as- 
sign, by said committee, other causes of complaint against him. In the perform* 
ance of their said duties, it appears to said committee, that they are bound to 
allege all the causes of complaint by said Parish against their pastor, which they 
consider of sufficient magnitude to be productive of any serious evil in the Par- 
ish ; and they, therefore, for the sake of convenient method, allege again the 
causes of complaint, mentioned in said preamble, and some additional causes of 
complaint, not specified in that preamble, to which this writing is intended to be 
added, and to be used in connexion therewith. 

And said committee, in behalf of said Parish, pursuant to the authority given 
them by said Parish, now allege the following causes of complaint by said Parish 
against the Rev. Dr. Holmes, as their pastor, to wit : 



9 



GO 



1. The great Innovation, exhibited by said pastor, in his practice in relation 
to ministerial exchanges. 

During more than thirty years from his instalment as Pastor in said Parish, 
he exchanged charitably and impartially with the Congregational ministers, 
within a convenient distance from said Cambridge, and in Cambridge, as well 
with those whom he knew to be of the liberal denomination, as with Calvinists ; 
but, within the three or four years last past, without consulting his parishioners, 
without giving them any express or definite notice of his intention to alter his 
practice in relation to such exchanges, in opposition to his own former practice, 
to that of his predecessors, and to the principles, taste, and wishes of a great ma- 
jority of his parishioners, he has adopted, and strictly adhered to, the Calvinistic 
exclusive system, has exchanged with Calvinists, or self-styled orthodox preach- 
ers, only, and entirely excluded clergymen of the liberal denomination from 
our pulpit, and thereby reduced a great majority of said parishioners to the ne- 
cessity of leaving the meeting-house of said Parish, in which they have a legal 
right, and where they have been accustomed to attend public worship, or of 
hearing only that kind of theology, which they sincerely believe to be mixed 
with much erroneous theory and mere human invention, equally opposed to 
sound and enlightened reason, and to a true interpretation and correct under- 
standing of divine revelation. 

2. The Rev. Dr. Holmes, as pastor of said Parish, introduced into said Parish, 
lectures, by Calvinists, from other Parishes and religious societies, on Sabbath 
evenings, and on one other evening in the week, contrary to his own former 
practice during more '.ban thirty years from the commencement of his ministry 
in this Parish, and contrary to the general, immemorial practice of his prede- 
cessors, who have been ministers in said Parish ; which lectures he so introduced 
without consulting his Parish, without their approbation, and in opposition to 
their religious principles, and to the peace, harmony, and moral and religious 
good of his parishioners. 

Said lectures were generally Calvinistic, and many of them, although called 
lectures on the Bible, were not only Calvinistic and Trinitarian, but highly par- 
tisan ; and, beyond all reasonable doubt in our minds, intended, by said pastor, 
to propagate the peculiar principles of Calvinism in said Parish, and to proselyte 
the liberal part of the parishioners, to that harsh, unreasonable, and unscriptural 
creed. 

3. After the Rev. Dr. Holmes had adopted said exclusive system in his pastoral 
exchanges, as aforesaid, and had, for a considerable period, confined his pa- 
rishioners to preaching by Calvinists, or ministers calling themselves orthodox, 
a large majority of the parishioners by their divers written petitions to him at 
different times, and the Parish, as a corporation, by votes, at different times, 
endeavored to induce him to consent to the admission of Congregational minis- 
ters of the liberal denomination into our pulpit. Said votes were passed by very 
large majorities of the legal voters in said Parish, and are as follows, to wit : 

Vote, Jan. 7th, 1828, requesting him " to exchange a reasonable proportion of 
the time, with such respectable clergymen of the liberal denomination, as are 
now pastors of the religious societies, with which the religious society in this 
Parish has been associated." 

Votes, passed, April 5th, A. D. 1828 ; 1st, to request him " to consent to the 
election and settlement by said Parish of such a colleague as shall be satisfactory 
to said Parish, to co-operate with him, in the performance of the duties of a 
public teacher of piety, religion, and morality in said Parish. 1 ' 2d, Also to re- 
quest him "to assent to an invitation by said Parish, to such clergymen as they 
may elect to invite, to preach in the meeting-house of said Parish, on the Sab- 
bath, not exceeding one half the time." 3d, Also to request him " to assent to 
an invitation by said Parish to any clergymen whom they may elect to invite to 
deliver lectures in the pulpit of the meeting-house in said Parish, at such times 
as said Parish may appoint." 

Each of the above mentioned votes was made known to Dr. Holmes very 
soon after the same was passed, as aforesaid, by sending him an attested copy 
thereof. But he has negatived each of said petitions by a majority of the pa- 
rishioners and each of said votes by the Parish, and perseveringly resisted all the 
numerous means, used at divers times and in different manners, by a great ma- 
jority of the parishioners, and by the Parish, as a corporation, to induce him to 
permit them to hear, in the pulpit of said Parish, preachers of the liberal denom- 



G7 



ination, such as they or their predecessors had always been accustomed to hear, 
during his ministry in this Parish, and in the time of his predecessors. 

4. Said Parish, by votes, passed by a very large majority of the legal voters 
therein, on the seventeenth day of May, 1S28, requested Dr. Holmes to discon- 
tinue the public evening lectures, in the meeting-house of said Parish and in 
said Parish, by clergymen of the Calvinistic denomination. Also, to discontinue 
his exchanges with clergymen of that denomination. Also, in case he did not 
comply with said requests, to ask a dismissal from his office of pastor of said 
Parish. But he, after having been duly notified of said last mentioned votes, 
and after having been fully informed, that said lectures and exchanges were 
opposed to the religious principles of a large majority of his parishioners, has 
continued such exchanges and lectures with perseverance to the present time ; 
and has refused to ask a dismissal from his office. A very large majority of the 
parishioners feel much aggrieved, by the continuance of said exchanges and lec- 
tures, as they believe that they are intended by Dr. Holmes, and are adapted, 
to propagate in said Parish the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, according to the pres- 
ent Calvinistic creed ; which tenets, they consider not only opposed to reason 
and the sacred Scriptures, but to all pure and true religion, to moral rectitude 
and piety ; and, particularly, opposed to that charity, which is greater than faith 
or hope ; without which pure Christianity can not exist ; without which all re- 
ligion is as sounding brass or a tinkling symbal. 

5. The large majority of the inhabitants of the First Parish in Cambridge, who 
are opposed to the Rev. Dr. Holmes, fully understand, that the distinguishing 
tenets, commonly called the five points of Calvinism, have been disbelieved, 
resisted, and condemned, as unreasonable, unscriptural, and, in their tendency, 
injurious to true religion, from their introduction to the present time, by large 
numbers of men, as much distinguished and celebrated for genius, learning, wis- 
dom, rectitude of conduct and piety, as any the world ever saw. Those tenets, 
which their reason, after the most careful investigation, rejects, and which ap- 
pear to them to be contrary to divine revelation, they are so far from believing 
to be essential to Christian virtue and piety, or to salvation, that they think 
them entirely false and dangerous, and pernicious in their tendency ; and, there- 
fore, in no degree adapted for a standard, by which to decide on the virtue, 
piety, or Christian character, of those, who honestly believe that those tenets 
are erroneous, and who find that they cannot adopt them, without violating 
their own reason and the plainest principles of revealed religion. For the pur- 
pose of showing how far Dr. Holmes makes his own peculiar Calvinistic tenets, 
his Trinitarian theories, and his own taste an exclusive standard, and how far he 
is thereby induced to disregard, or oppose, the religious principles and the taste 
and desires of a large majority of his parishioners, said committee consider it 
their duty to state, that said Parish, by a large majority, on the 7th day of Janu- 
ary, 1828, passed a vote, requesting Dr. Holmes " to reject Dr. Watts' Psalms 
and Hymns," then used in the meeting-house of said Parish, "and to substitute 
therefor and to use the collection of Psalms and Hymns " then used " in the 
Chapel of Harvard University," which request Dr. Holmes has refused. The 
religious principles of said majority made it appear to them a conscientious duty 
to pass said vote, and their taste likewise made them desirous of the substitution 
therein requested ; as they considered said proposed collection far preferable to 
Watts' Psalms and Hymns, both as to religious principle and to poetry. Watts' 
Psalms and Hymns were considered very deficient in many parts of the poetry, 
in the variety of metres, and liable to the insuperable objection of containing 
Trinitarian theories, which Dr Watts himself, after writing them, abandoned, 
on a more critical and full examination, and was very desirous of rejecting them 
from his book, and would have done it, if the person, to whom he had previ- 
ously sold the copyright of his Psalms and Hymns, would have permitted him to 
do it. 

6. Although our Rev. pastor has claimed immutability in his own religious 
theories, and has alleged a change of religious principles in the majority of his 
parishioners, who are opposed to him, and in the liberal ministers, with whom, 
or with whose predecessors, he exchanged formerly, during more than thirty 
years of his ministry in this Parish : yet we fully believe, that a majority of said pa- 
rishioners, in the time of his immediate predecessor, the Rev. Mr. Hilliard, were, and 
from that time hitherto have been, so rational or liberal, in their theological creed, 
as to be wholly opposed to all the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, and that said liberal 



GS 



ministers have not changed their religious principles, hut that their principles are now 
substantially the same, they were, when they, or their predecessors, exchanged with 
Dr. Holmes and preached in our pulpit, and that, if there has been any considerable 
change in religious theories, or principles, it has been in Dr. Holmes and his denom- 
ination, corresponding to their change in practice, and to their extraordinary preten- 
sions and exclusive claims in religion. We have no doubt, that it can be proved con- 
clusively, that the Rev. Mr. Hilliard was an Unitarian ; that his general system of 
theology was rational, scriptural, and liberal ; that he fully disbelieved each of the 
five distinguishing tenets of Calvinism ; that he was highly charitable, and veiy ex- 
emplary, and that he enjoyed very great harmony with his Church and Parish. 

7. That Dr. Holmes, during the whole period of his ministry in this Parish, 
has very much neglected the important duty of making pastoral visits, in rela- 
tion to a large majority of his parishioners. His visits to them have been very rare, 
and generally so shorthand at such times, as to be of little or no value as to morality 
and religion. His pastoral intercourse with the parishioners has been confined with- 
in such narrow limits, that it is highly probable, that he did not know their religious 
principles, until his said uncharitable innovations in his pastoral practice excited great 
dissatisfaction and complaint in a large majority of his parishioners, and reduced 
them to the necessity of stating to him some of their religious principles, so far as 
they are opposed to his distinguishing Calvinistic tenets, and to those of his favorite 
preachers, in order to regain and secure their parochial, religious rights and privi- 
leges, and in order to defend those infinitely important principles of religion, to which 
they are conscientiously attached, and which they feel bound to support in the best 
manner of which they are capable. We charitably presume and ad:<ait, that said ne- 
glect of parochial visits did not arise from any corrupt motive ; but from mere inatten- 
tion, or from erroneous but honest theory in relation to them, or from his numerous 
engagements and multiplied labors in a large number of societies, associations, con- 
sociations, &c. and from his great zeal, industry, and perseverance in historical and 
other pursuits, and investigations.* 

8. Because we feel a deep and painful conviction that our said pastor, by his great 
departure from that charitable, liberal, and christian practice, which he observed during 
more than thirty years of his ministry here, and by his inflexible perseverance in the 
above mentioned innovations in his pastoral conduct, has alienated the affections and 
lost the confidence of a large majority of his parishioners, and has wholly disqualified 
himself, in relation to thern, for usefulness in his pastoral office ; and by his firm, 
constant, zealous, and long continued opposition to their principles and desires, ex- 
pressed, and reasonable requests made, to him, excited in their minds a determina- 
tion not to hear him, as their minister, after the decision of the existing disputes be- 
tween him and said Parish, and to abandon said Parish, unless they can hear in our 
pulpit, at least a reasonable proportion of the time, that rational theology and sound 
morality, which they believe to be fully supported by divine revelation and by enlight- 
ened reason ; but much opposed to the distinguishing tenets of Calvinistic orthodoxy. 

Therefore we greatly fear, if Dr. Holmes shall continue to be pastor of said Parish, 
that his innovations aforesaid, connected with his zeal, boldness, and firm resolution 



* On this specification in the complaint, the publishers of the " Account," p. 39, 
have appended the following note : 

" This charge the Council refused to consider. It is doubted whether Dr. Holmes 
ever had the least connexion with a consociation — never, certainly, since he became 
the minister of Cambridge." 

The Council did not refuse to consider " this charge." The charge was read 
and several witnesses were examined to prove it. Other witnesses were present for 
the purpose of supporting that charge. A member of the Council inquired, whether 
it could be of any importance to the Parish to proceed further on that charge, which 
was adapted to occupy considerable time, and on consideration, the committee told 
the Council, that they were not solicitous to occupy the time of the Council by giv- 
ing further evidence on that charge ; as it was not necessary to their case, there being 
a sufficient number of other charges, for deciding on the merits of the controversy ; 
and, in this state of things, the committee forbore to examine further in relation to 
that charge. The Council were willing to consider the charge, if the committee chose 
to go through with their evidence on it. This is something widely different from the 
statement, that, " this charge the Council refused to consider." Those, who accuse 
others of misrepresentations, should attend to their own qualifications for the bu- 
siness of accusation, and be very careful in their own practice. 



69 



in support of them/ will, inevitably, destroy permanently the peace, harmony, and 
prosperity of said Parish ; will greatly reduce its numbers, and do it an irreparable 
iojury. 

ABRAHAM HILLIARD, 1 
ABEL WHITNEY, 

FRANCIS DANA, Committee 
JOB WYETH, } of 

SYLVANUS PLYMPTON, said Parish. 
JOSEPH HOLMES, 
Cambridge, -May 8, 1829. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE. 

In the " Account," pages 39 — 41, the publishers say : 
" Without remarking on the various misrepresentations occurring in this complaint, 
it is manifest on the face of it, that nothing from the first would have satisfied the 
leading opposers of Dr. Holmes, except his removal. Dr. Holmes is, and uniformly 
has been, a Calvinistic, or orthodox minister. With this fact let the reader compare 
the views above expressed relative to what are called, ' the tenets of Calvinism 
and let him judge for himself, whether those who entertain such views would have 
remained quietly, year after year, under the ministry of such a teacher. Would they, 
could they, have remained under the ministry of one, who, in their judgment, 
taught a system, ' not only opposed to reason, and the sacred scriptures, but to all 
pure and true religion, to moral rectitude and piety' — a system ' entirely false, 
and dangerous, and pernicious in its tendency .''* Whatever pretences may have 
been made, the object, from the first, has undoubtedly been to procure the dismis- 
sion of Dr. Holmes ; and at no period, it is confidently believed, would any thing 
short of this have satisfied the leaders of the opposition. 

" But further: the head and front of Dr. Holmes' offending has been, that after 
long hesitation and indulgence, he at length felt himself constrained to decline ex- 
changes with avowed Unitarian ministers ; and the public will see, in the foregoing 

* " If orthodox principles are of such ' dangerous and pernicious tendency,' so 
opposed 4 to all pure and true religion, to moral rectitude and piety,' it is strange 
that the faithful preaching of them should produce so good effects. Witness the 
effects produced by the preaching of the fathers of New England. Witness the 
effects produced by the preaching of all the venerable ministers of Cambridge, since 
the Church was established." '-Account," kc. p. 40. 

To this note, we deem it proper to add, that it is admitted, if the preaching of 
those principles had produced " the good effects," ascribed to it, it would be 
very strange ; as there is nothing in the distinguishing tenets of Calvinism, in any 
degree, adapted to the production of such effects. What those good effects were 
is not alleged ; but there is an implied conclusion, that all the great and good 
effects, produced by preaching in New England and in Cambridge, have arisen 
from preaching those principles. Every zealous denomination of Christians, relig- 
ionists, &c. has vainly imagined that its peculiar principles have been essential and 
all important, and the cause of all good effects in morality and religion ; but history, 
in relation to past ages, demonstrates the folly of such an imagination, makes it a 
proper object of ridicule, if not of contempt, and teaches the world, that such pecu- 
liar principles have generally been not only human inventions, but great and perni- 
cious errors, and that, instead of making mankind wiser and better, they have in every 
period, exerted a malignant influence, in exciting vanity, pride, ambition, jealousy, 
envy, anger, and other bad passions, and in clouding, binding, distorting and disabling 
the understanding, and thereby multiplying errors, contentions, hostilities, and many 
other most pernicious effects, inconsistent with the intellectual, moral, and religious 
improvement of the world. We must not confound the preaching of the peculiar 
tenets of Calvinism with the preaching of those great and infinitely valuable princi- 
ples of moral and religious truth, which are common to most, if not to all, christian 
denominations. The author of the foregoing note is informed, that his great " im- 
plied conclusion" is not admitted to be conformable to historical truth; but is a cun- 
ning specimen of eulogy by an individual on his own theological denomination. "All 
the venerable ministers of Cambridge' have not been Calvinists, and that fact is well 
known, and some of those, who were denominated Calvinists, were too charitable, 
pious, and wise, to devote any considerable proportion of their time to preaching 
the peculiar tenets of that denomination, which have been disputed, disbelieved, and 
condemned by vast numbers of persons, and by many of the wisest and best members 
of society, ever since their introduction. 



I 



70 

complaint, the hollowness and insufficiency of such a ground of offence. What are 
the views entertained by Unitarians respecting the Calvinistic or orthodox faith? 
They regard it as ' not only opposed to reason and the sacred scriptures, but to all 
pure and true religion, to moral rectitude, and piety' — 'a harsh, unreasonable, un- 
scriptural creed? — as 1 entirely false, and dangerous and pernicious in its tendency.' 
And do they really wish to exchange with men who hold and teach such a system of 
religion ? Do they wish to put men into their pulpits to inculcate such a faith — to 
teach such doctrines ? This complaint on the subject of exchange is certainly a 
most rediculous one. The Orthodox regard Unitarians as having departed from the 
essential doctrines of the gospel, and it is on this account that they decline ex- 
changes with them. They feel that they could not act with any appearance of con- 
sistency, as honest and faithful men, if they did otherwise. But while Unitarians 
regard the Orthodox as holding a system which is ' not only opposed to reason and 
the sacred scriptures, but to all pure and true religion, to moral rectitude and piety 1 
— a system ' entirely false, and dangerous and pernicious in its tendency,' they 
are most inconsistently urging an exchange of pulpits, and are harassing, censuring, 
and dismissing venerable and faithful men, because they cannot in conscience yield 
to their wishes !" 

There are no misrepresentations in the complaint. All the 
charges in it, except one, were substantially proved before the 
Council. " That nothing from the first would have satisfied the lead- 
ing opposers of Dr. Holmes, except his removal," is an assertion, which 
has been repeated too often, not only without, but against the evidence 
in the case. Previously to Dr. Holmes' adoption of the exclusive sys- 
tem, the prevailing character of his preaching was practical, and he 
was wise enough not to occupy the attention and waste the time of his 
parishioners with sermons, on the distinguishing tenets of Calvinism, 
and the doctrine of the Trinity, and often introduced liberal preachers 
into our pulpit. Had Dr. Holmes continued to preach and exchange, 
as he did more than thirty years, no complaint would have been pub- 
licly made, and the peace of the Parish would have been preserved. 
If Dr. Holmes has not altered very important and essential parts of 
his christian principles and feelings, why was he, " after long hesita- 
tion and indulgence, constrained to decline exchanges with avowed Uni- 
tarian ministers ?" What but a change in his mind on religious sub- 
jects destroyed that "hesitation" and put an end to that " indulgence?" 
What is the difference between " an avowed Unitarian minister" and 
one, whom Dr. Holmes and other persons generally believed, or even 
knew, to be Unitarians 1 The opinions expressed in some of the fore- 
going papers concerning Calvinism, relate to its distinguishing tenets : 
but not to those principles in which they harmonize with other denom- 
inations of Christians. " And do they really wish to exchange with 
men, who hold and teach such a system of religion V* " Do they wish 
to put men into their pulpits to inculcate such a faith, — to teach such 
doctrines ?" Unitarians do not arrogate to themselves all religion, and 
deny the christian character to other denominations, and refuse christ- 
ian fellowship to them, and, for the purpose of preventing their being 
heard, exclude them from their pulpits. Liberal preachers are friends 
to liberty of conscience, and to a charitable, pastoral intercourse, 
among ministers of different denominations, and they condemn all in- 
tolerance and bigotry. They do not wish their parishioners to hear 
the peculiar tenets of Calvinism, nor believe, that the preaching of 
them ever has been, or can be, useful, or in any degree adapted to 
promote the cause of true religion ; but, if Calvinists think it their 
duty to preach those tenets, they do not consider it consistent with 



71 



christian charity to exclude them from their pulpits on that account. 
In this parish the majority, through the whole of this controversy, 
have manifested a willingness, that the minority should hear Calvin- 
ism, a reasonable proportion of the time, if they prefer it, not because 
the majority believe its 'peculiarities to be true or useful, but because 
they are bound to allow the same liberty of conscience to others, 
which they claim for themselves. Liberal preachers do not wish to 
exchange with Calvinists, as such ; but are willing to maintain a pas- 
toral intercourse with them, as Christians. u The orthodox regard 
Unitarians as having departed from the essential doctrines of the gos- 
ple if they do, it should be understood, that such an opinion is not 
sufficient evidence to prove that those supposed " essential doctrines" 
are not radical errors in the minds of those, who believe them. But 
the above cited specimen of oratory artfully evades the important 
question in this controversy, which is not, whether Unitarians wish to 
exchange with Calvinists; nor whether it is expedient, that they should 
exchange ; but whether Dr. Holmes and a small number of the Par- 
ish shall compel the majority to hear Calvinism only, against their 
principles, and deprive them of hearing what they believe to be relig- 
ious truth, and what they were formerly accustomed to hear, unless 
they leave the Parish 1 The majority in this Parish are not urging an 
exchange with Calvinists, nor invitations by Dr. Holmes to them to 
come into this Parish and preach here, against the religious principles 
of the majority and votes of the Parish ; but are ardently desirous of 
seeing the termination of such exchanges and invitations in this Par- 
ish, and having an opportunity to hear constantly that preaching, 
which they consider both true and useful, instead of being false and 
hurtful. But all the proceedings of the majority in this controversy 
demonstrate, that they condemn and reject the system of exclusion, 
which Calvinists have introduced, and are making great efforts to 
support and enforce, contrary to their former practice, and to the 
prevalent, charitable, religious principles and feelings of an enlight- 
ened age, but in harmony with the bigotry and intemperate zeal of 
the dark ages, when papal infallibility was made the standard for re- 
ligious truth, and superstition governed the ecclesiastical world. May 
those, who magnify christian humility, in ivords, never succeed in 
establishing their claim to infallibility, or in supporting an uncharita- 
ble system of exclusion. 

Pursuant to the letters missive before mentioned, the gentlemen 
mentioned in the following Result of Council assembled at the time 
and place appointed in said letters. 

The Rev. Dr. Nichols, who, with a delegate from his Church had 
been invited to attend, not being present, and there being no delegate 
from his Church, or the Church under the pastoral care of the Rev. 
Dr. Parker, attending, the Committee of the Parish requested the 
gentlemen present, pursuant to said letters missive, to proceed, as an 
Ecclesiastical Council in the business on which they had been called 
to act. 

The council having been organized by the election of a Moderator, 
a Scribe, and an Assistant Scribe, the following communication from 
Dr. Holmes, addressed to the Moderator, was read. 



72 



To the Rev. Ezra Ripley, D. D. — To be communicated to the Ministers and Delegates 
assembled by invitation of a Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge, to in- 
quire into and decide upon complaints intended to be alleged against me. 

I have received notice of your being called to sit this day as an ex parte 
council, to bear certain complaints which, it is understood, are to be preferred 
against rne by a Committee of the Parish of which I am minister. Having been 
always willing, and having uniformly expressed my willingness, and being still 
willing, to concur in the calling of a Mutual Council, in such manner as has been 
generally practised among the Congregational Churches and Parishes in New 
England, I feel myself in duty bound to deny the jurisdiction of an ex parte 
Council ; and I do therefore protest against the power and authority of this 
Council to take any cognizance of any complaint which may be made against 
me by any Committee or other persons of my Parish, and against all and every 
proceeding which may be adopted, or proposed to be adopted, on the subject 
of any such complaint. 

ABIEL HOLMES, 
Pastor of the First Church and Society in Cambridge. 
Cambridge, 19 May, 1829. 

The following Protest by a Committee of the First Church of Christ 
in Cambridge, " against any proceedings which said Council may have 
in relation to the subjects submitted to their consideration and de- 
cision," was read. 

To the Ecclesiastical Council to be holden in the First Parish in Cambridge, on 
Tuesday, the nineteenth day of May inst., to hear and determine upon the alleged 
causes of complaint against the Rev. Dr. Holmes, preferred by the inhabitants of 
said Parish, by their Committee, appointed for this purpose. 

The undersigned, members of the First Church of Christ in Cambridge, and a 
Committee, appointed for the purpose of representing the interests of said 
Church, before any Council, to be convened within said Parish, do hereby, in 
behalf of said Church, enter our solemn Protest against any proceedings, which 
said Council may have in relation to the subjects submitted to their consideration 
and decision, and for the following reasons : — 

First, Because the Church, by their vote passed on the twenty-first day of De- 
cember, A. D. 1828, unanimously voted to unite with the Parish and Pastor, in call- 
ing a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for the purpose of adjusting the difficulties 
existing between Rev. Dr. Holmes, and the members of said Parish. 

Second, Because we believe the members of said Parish have adopted an un- 
precedented course in rejecting the concurrent voice of the Church, in calling a 
Council, deeply interested as they are, in the subjects submitted to such Council. 

Third, Because, while we disclaim all right to interfere with the Parish in any 
civil contract, providing for the support of a " teacher of piety, morality, and 
religion," according to our constitution and laws, we are not willing quietly to 
surrender the rights of the Church, in the question of deposing a minister and 
pastor, who has faithfully, and, as we believe, conscientiously discharged the 
duties of his office for nearly forty years, with an almost universal acceptance. 

Fourth, Because, that in almost, if not all the questions, that have been decided 
by our courts of law, involving ecclesiastical principles, although it has not been 
adjudged essential that the Church and Society should unite in the call and set- 
tlement of a minister, and no controlling power is given to the Church, yet the 
principle of co-operation has uniformly been recognised, and strongly recom- 
mended. 

Fifth, Because we believe, that there has been no provision of law, or decision 
of any court, that goes to exclude the Church from all consideration and interest, 
in questions so nearly affecting their rights, as those which this Council are 
called to consider ; and especially where there has been a desire, distinctly ex- 
pressed by the Church, to co-operate with the Parish, in the measure w hich they 
themselves have proposed. 

Sixth, Because we believe, that from an unbiassed and candid consideration 
of the present case, it will be found, that many of the proposals submitted to Dr. 
Holmes by the Parish, have been unreasonable in themselves, and such as in the 



73 



exercise of an independent private judgment, he had an undisputed right to 
reject ; and that the Parish have unreasonably withheld their co-operation with 
the Church, so strongly recommended by our courts, and thereby prevented the 
call of a Mutual Council, whose decision would probably have been satisfactory 
to all parties concerned. 

Seventh, Because we are not prepared, as yet. to submit to the opinion, that 
there are no rights pertaining to the Church of Christ, in distinction from those 
which belong to us as citizens, and especially in questions involving the rights of 
conscience, and a sacred regard to those institutions, on the preservation of which 
our religious liberty so essentially depends. 

Eighth, Because the funds belonging to the First Church in Cambridge, the 
income of whicn is, in part, appropriated to the support of the ministry, and the 
relief of poor widows belonging to the Church, has been accumulated from the 
voluntary contribution of its own members, at the communion ; and in the Act, 
incorporating {h&Minislerial Fund, separate from that of the Church, the Church 
is recognised as a party interested in the appropriation of its income. 

JYinih, Because, as a Church of Christ, we feel much aggrieved at the pro- 
ceedings of the Parish, in refusing to acknowledge our rights and interests, in the 
all-important subject, now submitted to your consideration and decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, we the undersigned, in behalf of said Church, re- 
spectfully request the Council now convened, to stay all proceedings in relation 
to the subjects of complaint, preferred by the Parish against Rev. Dr. Holmes, 
but such as will recommend a Mutual Council, according to ecclesiastical usage, 
from whose decision the Church claim no appeal. 

WILLIAM HILLIARD, ^ 
JAMES M UN ROE, | Committee of the 

RICHARD H. DANA, } First Church 

JONATHAN C. PRENTISS, | in Cambridge. 
SAMUEL F. SAWYER, j 
Cambridge, First Parish, May 14, 1829. 

The following communication, signed by Willian Hilliard and 27 
others of the parishioners, which number included a majority of the 
Church, protesting against the Council's " proceeding to consider the 
subject before them," was also presented and read. 

To the Ecclesiastical Council, convened and holden in the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge, on Tuesday, the nineteenth day of May, A. D one thousand eight hundred 
and twenty-nine, by Letters Missive from a Committee of said Parish, and in virtue 
of an authority supposed to have been given to said Committee by said Parish, by 
their Vote of the twenty-second day of December, 1828, " to call an ex parte 
Council, to advise in relation to all difficulties and matters in controversy, existing 
between the Rev. Dr. Holmes and said Parish, before such Council, and to adopt 
and pursue all suitable and legal measures in relation to a settlement of said 
difficulties, or a dissolution of the connexion existing between the said Holmes and 
the said Parish." 

We, the undersigned, members of, and legal voters in the said First Parish of 
Cambridge, feeling deeply interested, and much aggrieved by the proceedings of 
said Parish in relation to the subject upon which you are called to act, do hereby 
respectfully and solemnly enter our Protest against the Ecclesiastical Council, 
thus convened, proceeding to consider the subject before them ; — and for the 
following reasons, vis. : 

First, Because the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the present incumbent, was settled in 
the First Parish in Cambridge, by the united and concurrent voice of the Church 
and Society in said Parish, without any conditions, limitation, or restrictions, 
affixed to his settlement. 

Second, Because, that in all the propositions, which have been made to the 
Parish, at their several meetings, and which have by them been adopted, no 
allegations have been made against the Rev. Dr. Holmes, for immoral conduct, 
a neglect of his ministerial or parochial duties, or a change of doctrine, the only 
three grounds, as we humbly conceive, upon which an Ecclesiastical Council 
can proceed to dissolve the connexion subsisting between a minister and his 
people, except by the mutual consent of all parties interested. 
10 



74 



Third, Because the several proposals, submitted by the Parish to the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, for his adoption, prior to that of calling an Ecclesiastical Council, were 
of such a nature as gave him the right of rejecting or accepting, in perfect accord- 
ance with the tenure by which he holds his office, and by an independent 
exercise of the right of private judgment. 

Fourth, Because we believe, that no individual, or body of men whatever, 
civil or ecclesiastical, have a right, under our government, to pass any law, 
order, rule, or edict, that will serve lo impair or destroy the obligation of con- 
tracts, without a violation of one of the most important provisions of the con- 
stitution. 

Fifth, Because, that in the Act incorporating the Trustees of the Ministerial 
Fund of the First Parish in Cambridge, it is provided, "that the annual income 
of said Fund shall be appropriated to the support of such Congregational minis- 
ter or ministers, as shall be regularly ordained and settled in said Parish, by the 
joint concurrence of the Inhabitants and Church thereof." 

Sixth, Because the right of the Committee of the Parish, by virtue of the vote 
of said Parish, passed on the twenty-second day of December last, to call an 
ex parte Council, for the purposes expressed in said vote, does not exist; Rev. 
Dr. Holmes never having refused, neglected, or delayed to unite in calling a 
Mutual Council, according to ecclesiastical usage. 

Seventh, Because the Parish, by their vote, passed on the twenty-second day 
of December last, refused to receive the memorial of the Church, almost unani- 
mously adopted, as also the minority of the Parish, the purport of which was, 
that the Church, as such, should unite with the Parish and the Pastor, in the call 
of a Mutual Council, according to ancient and immemorial usage 

Eighth, Because, as we humbly conceive, all the parties, originally concerned 
in the call and settlement of a minister, are justly entitled by usage, courtesy, 
equity, and law, to a hearing before any tribunal competent to the adoption of 
measures tending to dissolve the connexion existing between such minister and 
his people. 

Ninth, Because we seriously apprehend, that a severance of the ties, which 
have so long and so happily subsisted between a faithful pastor and his flock, 
upon the grounds which in the present case have been alleged, will tend essen- 
tially to undermine and destroy the foundations upon which our religious insti- 
tutions have, for centuries, rested in security. 

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully request the Council, 
now convened, to stay all proceedings in relation to the complaints which have 
been submitted to their consideration, as may tend to dissolve the connexion 
existing between Rev. Dr. Holmes and the First Church and Society in Cam- 
bridge, — and that whatever their decision may be, tending to a dissolution of this 
connexion, they will permit this our solemn protest to be entered upon the 
records of their proceedings. And, as in duty bound, will ever pray. 

Cambridge, First Parish, May IS, 1829. 

A Committee was appointed to wait on Dr Holmes, and inform him 
that the Council were in session, and would receive any further infor- 
mation which he or his friends might think proper to introduce ; which 
Committee reported that Dr. Holmes had no futher communication to 
make. 

The Complaint made by the Committee, in behalf of the Parish? 
against Dr. Holmes, having been read, said Committee in support of 
the several allegations and charges in said Complaint, introduced 
several witnesses, who testified, that the Rev. Mr. Hilliard, the imme- 
diate predecessor of Dr. Holmes, was considered as entertaining 
liberal theological sentiments ; that he attended and assisted at an 
ordination of a gentleman who u was an Arminian, well known as 
such;" that he afterwards preached for said gentleman; conversed 
freely with him on religious subjects, and expressed w his full dis- 
sent from the doctrines of Calvinism ; that in the conversation above 



75 



referred to, witness did not hear him u speak definitely about the 
Trinity; that topic was not then agitated," and that witness ■ " pre- 
sumed he was an Unitarian." 

It was stated by another witness, that " at the ordination of the late 
Dr. Mayhew, two churches only were present, Dr. Appleton's and 
Mr. Gay's of Hingham : it was supposed the reason of the absence 
of other churches was, that Dr. Mayhew was liberal ; " that " at the 
ordination of Dr. Howard, of Boston, Dr. Appleton gave the right- 
hand of fellowship ; " that witness had always supposed Dr. May- 
hew and Dr. Howard were more liberal than other clergymen of their 
day ; that Dr. Howard was not a member of the Boston Association, 
owing, as was supposed, to his being more liberal than other clergy- 
men ; that the subject of the Trinity was not then agitated, but Dr. 
Mayhew and Dr. Howard were both anti-Calvinistic, and that witness 
had reason to believe Dr. Mayhew was not a Trinitarian. 

A gentleman who had been a member of Dr. Holmes' church for 
nineteen years, testified, that until within four or five years Dr. 
Holmes exchanged freely with most of the liberal clergymen in his 
vicinity, with the Rev. Mr. Gannett of Cambridge very frequently ; — 
that witness always understood that the majority of the church were 
liberal, until within three or four years last past ; that he had reason 
so to suppose from the fact, that they several times voted to send dele- 
gates to Unitarian ordinations, against the wishes of Dr. -Holmes, 
particularly in the cases of Rev. Messrs. Gannett and Pierpont of 
Boston, in both which cases the church voted to send, and did send, 
but Dr. Holmes did not attend ; that the church have lately refused 
to join in such ordinations ; that the whole number of male members 
was nineteen, of which one third were liberal ; that there were no 
objections on the part of the church to liberal exchanges until within 
three years last past ; that the congregation was larger when Uni- 
tarian clergymen preached, especially in the afternoon, than when 
Calvinists officiated ; that the congregation within the last two or 
three years, and more especially within the last year, has diminished ; 
that for 20 years past, witness had considered the Parish as liberal in 
their religious opinions ; that sometime after Dr. Holmes commenced 
his exclusive system there were, at one time, seven individuals ad- 
mitted to church membership ; that he then thought, and always 
should think, that this was the result of a concerted plan for the pur- 
pose of making a show ; and that there had been no accessions to the 
church within the last year. 

It was stated by another aged witness, that he was acquainted 
with Mr. Hilliard, Dr. Holmes' predecessor ; that he did not con- 
sider him a Calvinist ; and was clear, that he was not a Trinita- 
rian ; that he was popular, beloved, and respected ; that when Dr. 
Holmes came here, witness " considered him, for a Connecticut 
man, liberal ; that his liberality did not increase with his years ; 
that when the Rev. William Ware came here from New York, Dr. 
Holmes inportuned him to preach, and on being told by Mr. Ware 
that he had no sermon with him, Dr. Holmes replied, that he must 
make one, — that he must preach ; that on another occasion Mr. Ware, 
on a visit at Cambridge, called on Dr. Holmes, who held a long con- 



76 



versation with him, and closed it with giving him a lecture on minis- 
terial intercourse, and said, " it icas time to draw a line among the 
clergymen ;" that as Mr. Ware was leaving Dr. Holmes, he said, " You 
must preach for me next Sabbath, half a day;" to which Mr. Ware 
assented at the time, but afterwards declined accepting the invitation. 
This was at the time Dr. Holmes changed his ground, the time of the 
General Convention, when letters had been sent to the orthodox 
clergy to be prompt and punctual in their attendance ; that Dr. Holmes 
had not afterwards exchanged, as witness recollected, with liberal 
clergymen ; that " since that time he seems to have enlisted under a 
new banner ;" " has been more Calvinistic in his preaching, especially 
in vacation, when the officers of the college were present ; " that wit- 
ness wrote to Dr. Holmes two or three times in a friendly manner, on 
the subject of the course he had taken, and advised him to withdraw 
from his Parish, but that Dr. Holmes had returned no answer to the 
letters referred to. 

Another witness, who had lived in Cambridge 25 years, and had had 
a family 20 years, testified, that Dr. Holmes' pastoral visits to his family 
did not average more than one a year ; that they were generally at 
the latter part of the day, and 15 or 20 minutes in duration ; that " he 
sometimes introduced religious and moral subjects, sometimes gave 
affectionate advice, and occasionally such as we did not approve ; " 
that several persons had absented themselves from meeting on ac- 
count of Dr. Holmes' exchanges, and manner of preaching ; that 
others have threatened to go off; that the congregation is diminish- 
ing ; * that the preaching of Dr. Holmes, since he discontinued 
liberal exchanges, had been more frequently doctrinal, and that for 
these reasons, witness and others had occasionally gone to other 
meetings ; that witness recollected a conversation at his house be- 
tween Dr. Holmes and himself, in which Dr. Holmes mentioned lec- 
tures by Universalists in his neighbourhood, advised him and his 
family by no means to attend them, and said, that they were dangerous, 
and that he would not himself, and would not have a friend of his, 
adopt those sentiments for all the world. 

Another witness stated, that about two years ago he left Dr. Holmes' 
meeting on account of his exchanges, and attended elsewhere ; that 
on communion days, he attended in the morning at Dr. Holmes' 
meeting, being then and still a member of his church ; that others 
had absented themselves on the same account, declaring that they 
were willing to return, if Dr. Holmes would return to his former 
course of practice ; that a large proportion of the voters in Dr. Holmes' 
Parish, certainly three to one, were liberal. 

Another witness testified, that he commenced worshipping with Dr. 
Holmes in 1794, and joined his church in 1799 ; that he always 
considered his Parish as liberal, and he so considered his church 



* How the evidence, here given, in relation to the decrease of Dr. Holmes' 
congregation, will justify the declaration of Dr. Holmes on pages 54, 55, "that, 
so far from finding causes of discouragement in my ministry during three or four 
of the last years, I have found very much to encourage me. The public services 
of the Sabbath, it has appeared to me, have been attended by greater numbers, 
and with more solemnity," we are at a loss to imagine. 



17 



until within three or four years last past ; that he never supposed a 
single member of his Parish dissatisfied with liberal exchanges until 
within a few years ; that until within a few years he had never known 
Dr. Holmes preach upon the Trinity, as a controverted doctrine ; but 
within that time, he has preached on it ; and in answer to a question, 
whether the preaching of Dr. Holmes within the last three or four 
years had become uncharitable and denunciatory, he replied in the 
affirmative. 

A witness testified, that he " attended two lectures here by Dr. 
Beecher; the subject of the first was, " A change of heart;" of the 
second, " Regeneration ; " at the close of these lectures, Dr. Beecher 
made an exhortation to the friends of Dr. Holmes ; said the existing 
controversy was no less than this, " whether the doctrines of our fore- 
fathers should be embraced, or whether a moral desolation should 
sweep over the land," and that Dr. Holmes was present on these oc- 
casions. 

Another witness testified, that " he removed to this place about four 
years ago ; that he first joined Dr. Holmes' society, but left his meet- 
ing-house on account of his denunciatory preaching, and his ministe- 
rial exchanges ; that he should have continued his attendance at Dr. 
Holmes' meeting, had Dr. Holmes continued to preach and exchange 
as he formerly did ; that witness recollected, that on one occasion 
Dr. Holmes called the majority of his Parish " connivers," and from 
that time he withdrew from his meetings ; that the general strain of 
Dr. Holmes' preaching reflected severely, as witness thought, on his 
Parish. 

Another gentleman, a clergyman, testified, that he once considered 
Dr. Holmes among his best friends ; that he was in habits of intimacy 
with Dr. Holmes before his settlement ; that Dr. Holmes well knew the 
religious sentiments of witness at the time of, and long previously to, his 
ordination, — that Dr. Holmes well knew witness to be an Unitatrian ; 
that he used frequently to exchange with Dr. Holmes ; that the last 
time of exchanging between Dr. Holmes and witness was June 11, 
1826; that in 1815 they exchanged five times, and they used, gen- 
erally, to exchange four or five times a year; that Dr. Holmes often 
requested witness to preach his preparatory lectures ; which request, 
though a compliance was sometimes attended with inconvenience, 
witness seldom felt at liberty to decline, in consideration of the great 
friendship subsisting between them ; that, in a conversation between 
Dr. Holmes and witness, on the Saturday next preceding the sitting 
of the Council, witness remarked to him, that nothing had grieved 
witness so much as Dr. Holmes' change of conduct towards him, and 
that witness regretted Dr. Holmes had laid aside his christian spirit ; 
that Dr. Holmes said, " the time had come to draw a line among Con- 
gregational ministers ; " that, about a year since, witness proposed an 
exchange with Dr. Holmes, which he declined, by saying he was 
engaged. 

An aged member of the Parish, being absent from Cambridge at 
the sitting of the Council, having been requested to communicate to 
the Council such information as he possessed, relative to the sub- 
jects of inquiry, in a written statement, which was read to the Coun- 



78 



cil, testified, that he had ever lived in this Parish, and well re- 
membered the state of it for 50 years past; that he recollected Dr. 
Appleton, and always considered him a liberal minded and useful 
minister ; that he exchanged freely and frequently with the congre- 
gational clergymen in this vicinity, and was much and universally 
beloved by his people ; that his successor, Rev. Mr. Hilliard, was very 
much respected by the people of his charge ; that he exchanged very 
freely and generally with the Congregational ministers in the vicinity ; 
that he always considered him a minister of liberal principles ; that 
witness had been a member of Dr. Holmes' society ever since his 
settlement ; that for thirty years or more after his settlement, Dr. 
Holmes exchanged very frequently with the ministers of Boston and 
its vicinity ; that within three or four years past, Dr. Holmes had, 
unhappily for the peace and harmony of the Parish, discontinued his 
exchanges with clergymen denominated liberal, or Unitarian, with 
whom he had been accustomed to exchange, and had confined his ex- 
changes to clergymen denominated Calvinistic, or orthodox ; that the 
majority of Dr. Holmes' Parish are decidedly liberal, and opposed to 
the modern exclusive system, which he has adopted ; that they have 
been of this character ever since the question of the Trinity has been 
a subject of controversy, have always been gratified by his exchanges 
with liberal clergymen, and much regret his refusal still to exchange 
with them. Among those with whom Dr. Holmes used to exchange, 
were, Dr. Lowell, Dr. Channing, Dr. Porter, Dr. Gray, Dr. Harris, 
Dr. Ware, Dr. Kirkland, Mr. Thatcher, Mr. Buckminster, and Mr. 
Gannett of Cambridge, and many and most of the Congregational 
clergy in Dr. Holmes' neighbourhood. 

At the time of the settlement of Dr. Holmes, there were many of 
the Parish who were desirous of settling Mr. Alden Bradford. That 
he is confident that the usefulness of Dr. Holmes as minister of the 
Parish is very much diminished by the course he has recently adopt- 
ed, and that the Parish would never be satisfied with him as their 
minister, unless he returned to his former and long-continued prac- 
tice of liberal exchanges ; that, although he had heard complaints of 
Dr. Holmes' neglect of pastoral visits, no serious difficulty had arisen 
between minister and people, and they generally esteemed and re- 
spected him until his change of ministerial practice, which alienated 
their affections from him ; that he believed the present difficulties had 
arisen " solely from Dr. Holmes' change of practice, if not of senti- 
ment, and not from any change of sentiment in religious theory and 
faith in the majority of his flock." 

In addition to the testimony above stated, the following written 
depositions or statements were read to the Council. 

To the Ecclesiastical Council, to be held on the nineteenth of May, to 
advise in relation to difficulties existing between the people of the 
First Parish in Cambridge, and their Pastor, the Rev. Dr. Holmes. 

Gentlemen, 

At the request of the Committee of said Parish, I testify, that on 
the twenty-sixth of November, 1826, I preached by exchange in the 
pulpit of the Rev. Dr. Holmes, who preached for me at Medford. 

At the request of the same Committee also, I testify, that, in the 



79 



summer of 1S27, I heard one of the evening lectures of the Rev. 
Edward Beecher, of Boston, on the Evidences of Christianity, delivered 
at the old court-house, in Cambridge ; in which lecture, according to 
my best recollection, the said Mr. Beecher maintained the following 
proposition, namely, — That, in proportion as a doctrine, purporting to 
come from God, is opposed by man, in that proportion is its truth 
confirmed, because man is by nature opposed to the truth. This 
principle he illustrated by referring the unbelief of the Jews in the 
Messiah, and, in general, all unbelief in the doctrines of Christianity, 
to a native depravity of the heart. In order that I might be sure that I 
was not mistaken, in regard to the principle laid down by Mr. Beech- 
er, I, on that evening, or on the following evening, stated it in nearly 
the same words to one or two persons who heard the lecture, and 
found that they agreed with me in their understanding of the propo- 
sition maintained in it. 

Yours, respectfully, 
12 May, 1829. • ■ . 

A reverend Doctor of Divinity in the Commonwealth made the 
following written statement. 

, May 1, 1829. 

To the Council proposed to be held at Cambridge, on the nineteenth of 
the present month, on account of the Controversies between the In- 
habitants of the First Parish in Cambridge and the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, their Pastor. 

The subscriber, being requested to state what evidence he possesses 
in relation to the religious opinions of the late Rev. Mr. Hilliard, is 
ready to testify, that after the installation of the Rev. Mr. Hilliard, 
Oct. 1783, being at that time a student in the University, he constant- 
ly attended public worship with the society under Mr. Hilliard's pas- 
toral care. After receiving his first degree, at the commencement of 
1786, he resided nearly two years in the family of the late Chief 
Justice Dana, and continued to attend public worship with the First 
Parish in Cambridge. He united himself with the church in that 
place. He occasionally visited Mr. Hilliard, and was happy to hear 
his rational conversation upon religious subjects. In his discourses, in 
his devotional exercises, in his more private and familiar advice to 
the young gentlemen who called upon him, the subscriber is ready 
to declare, with the most perfect sincerity, that he never heard him 
utter a sentiment which liberal christians and those who are now de- 
nominated Unitarians, would disapprove. 

That Mr. Hilliard was decidedly opposed to the distinguishing tenets 
of Calvinism, is a fact so well known to the subscriber, and to so 
many others still living, that it cannot be called in question. With 
respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, the subscriber is firmly persuaded, 
from repeated conversations with him, that it constituted no part of 
his creed. His opinion upon this subject agreed more nearly with 
that of the late excellent Dr. Price, than any other author whom I 
have ever met with. 

The sermons preached at the ordination of Dr. Ware, at the ordi- 
nation of the subscriber, if perused with care, will tend to confirm the 



80 



correctness of the statement which is here given with regard to the 
theological tenets of the late Rev. Mr. Hilliard. 

I am, gentlemen, with every sentiment of esteem and respect, your 
sincere friend. . 

The following Sermons and Eulogy were introduced in evidence 
before* the Council to prove the Rev. Timothy Milliard's theological 
character, and to prove that he was anti-Calvin istic &,c, and one of 
the most liberal ministers of his age, in his pastoral intercourse &c, 
to wit : — 

Sermon by Rev. Timothy Hilliard, delivered December 10th, 1788, 
at the Ordination of the Rev. John Andrews, D. D., Newburyport. 

Sermon by Rev. Timothy Hilliard, delivered October 24th, 1787, 
at the Ordination of the Rev. Henry Ware, now D. U., in Hingham. 

Sermon by Rev. Timothy Hilliard, at the Ordination of the Rev. 
Bezaleel Howard, in Springfield, April 27th. J 785. 

President Willard's Eulogy on said Hilliard, who died May, 1790. 

Divers parts of the following printed sermons, by the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes, were read in evidence to the Council, to wit : — 

His Sermon before the Convention of Congregational Ministers, 
May 27th, 1819, to prove Dr. Holmes' opinions at that time, concern- 
ing the character which a pastor ought to exhibit, especially to those 
not belonging to his own sect, and concerning the rights of churches. 
See from p. 25, the section beginning on that page. — See from p. 32 
to p. 34 relative to the rights of the churches. 

The Sermon preached at the Ordination of the Rev. Thomas B. 
Gannett, at Cambridge-Port, January 19th, 1814, to prove Dr. Holmes' 
friendship to Mr. Gannett at that time, his high opinion of him as a 
man, a Christian, and a minister, and his eloquent commendation of 
him, although a Unitarian. 

Two Sermons, preached January 25th, 1829, the thirty-seventh an- 
niversary of Dr. Holme's installation. The introductory note by the 
author, relating to this controversy. 

The Committee of the Parish having offered to the Council the 
evidence above mentioned, the Hon. Samuel Hoar, jun. of Concord, 
made the concluding argument for the Parish. 

At the time of Mr. Hoar's argument, Dr. Holmes having denied the 
jurisdiction of the Council, it was not known, or suspected, that any 
argument, other than the arguments contained in his numerous papers 
to the memorialists and the Parish, was made by him, or for him ; but 
from the " Account" &lc. by "the church," it appears that Dr. 
Holmes, on the first day of the session of the Council, secretly ad- 
dressed to an old friend, a member of that Council, a letter, contain- 
ing his argument of the case, of which letter the following is a copy, 
as the same is published in said " Account," &,c. p. 43. 

To the Rev. , D D. 

Rev. and dear Sir, — I have been informed that you are a member of an ex 
parte Council, assembled here to-day to heat certain complaints which are to be 
preferred against me by a Committee of my Parish. You will perceive by my 
protest, that 1 wholly decline the jurisdiction of this ex parte Council. 

In a formal paper, like a protest, it did not seem necessary that I should do 
more than object generally to all its proceedings, and deny, in terms, its author- 



81 



ity. I am entirely willing, however, my dear Sir, to present to you, a9 a friend 
of long standing, a brief state of the facts of the case, which have governed ray 
conduct. 

I think the Council has no jurisdiction, because it is ex parte, and because no 
cause exists for summoning an ex parte Council. 

I. Because in the proceedings of the Parish, which have issued in your being 
asked to sit as an ex parte Council, the Church in this Parish have neither been 
invited, nor permitted, to have any part, although from the first proposal of a 
Council, and uniformly since, they have expressed their desire, both to the Parish 
and to the pastor, to unite in calling a Mutual Council, and claimed merely a 
concurrent voice, on the ground of equity and ecclesiastical usage; and other 
parishioners have, in like manner, expressed, in a Memorial to the Parish, the 
same desire of the concurrent voice of the Church. Such concurrence is be- 
lieved to be requisite from ecclesiastical usage, and from the mode of rny settle- 
ment in this Parish. 

1. From ecclesiastical usage. The Congregational churches, from the beginning, 
have been accustomed to have a distinct voice in all proceedings relating to the 
settlement and dismission of ministers, or the preferring of complaints against 
them ; and in cases affecting their rights and privileges. 

2. From the mode of my settlement. I was called to the pastoral and ministerial 
office in this church and congregation by the distinct and concurrent votes of the 
Church and of the Parish. The Church was a party to the contract which has 
so long subsisted between myself and this people. The Church, therefore, as 
well as the Parish, ought, I apprehend, to be a party to any measures tending to 
the dissolution of that relation, and to have the opportunity, at least, of giving, 
by a distinct voice, their concurrence in those measures. 

II. Because a Mutual Ecclesiastical Council has not been declined on my part. 
The uniform ecclesiastical usage in this State renders the calling of an ex parte 
Council proper and valid, only when a regular Mutual Council has been declined. 
The Parish have, through their Committee, proposed to me a Mutual Council : 
But I have not declined a Mutual Council; on the contrary, I have distinctly 
and repeatedly declared my consent to such a Council, should it be regularly 
called, and my readiness to co-operate with the Committee in calling such a 
Council. That I have never declined such a Council, may be seen by my first 
answer of the 28th of January last to the Parish, and by all my subsequent com- 
munications on that subject. From these communications it may also be seen, 
that, while I have expressed to the Committee my desire that the Church might 
have a concurrent voice in calling the Council, I have never yet, in point of 
fact, refused a Mutual Council, to be chosen in the manner which the Parish 
have preferred. However I might have ultimately decided that question, I 
thought it my duty to state to the Committee of the Parish the manner in which 
I considered the Council should be chosen, and to request them to lay before the 
Parish my answer to their proposal, expressive of my wishes upon the subject, 
which they have declined to do ; and while the claims of the Church were, a3 
I supposed, in discussion before the Committee of the Parish, they broke off* the 
discussion, and called an ex parte Council. — In these circumstances I have sup- 
posed that ministers would not consent to sit as upon an Ecclesiastical Council ; 
but, however they may decide on that for themselves, it is clear, in my opinion, 
that their proceedings would not be valid. 

Permit me to add : The introduction of an ex parte Council, in this case, 
would, I apprehend, be a departure from such usage as has become the common 
law of our churches, and would furnish a precedent, which, if followed and 
sanctioned, might violate, or impair, the obligation of the most solemn contracts, 
and deprive our churches of those invaluable rights, the enjoyment and mainte- 
nance of which were the primary object of our forefathers in forming the first 
settlement of New England. 

Believing, my dear Sir, that you will receive this communication in the friend- 
ly spirit in which it is written, 

I am yours truly, with respect and regard, 
Cambridge, 19 May, 1829. A. HOLMES.* 



* 1 0 temporal 0 mores! Heu pietas! ' — It is almost impossible to believe, that 
the Rev. Dr. Holmes wrote and secretly sent the above letter ; but it is stated in the 
" Account " &c. that he did. Jf so, in public view, he denied the jurisdiction of the 
11 



82 



Result of Council. 

Cambridge, May 19, 1829. 
In pursuance of letters missive from a Committee of the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge, an Ecclesiastical Council assembled in the Old Court House, " to hear 
and advise in relation to difficulties and matters in controversy, existing between 
said Parish and the Rev. Abiel Holmes, D. D., their pastor, and continued in 
session by adjournments till May 21. 



Deacon Reuben Brown, Jr. 
Deacon William Davis. 
Brother Samuel M. Burnside. 
Deacon Joel Wilder. 
Brother Zechariah F. Silsbee* 



Concord, Ezra Ripley, D. D. 

Roxbury, Eliphalet Porter, D. D. 
Worcester, Aaron Bancroft, D. D. 
Lancaster, Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. 
Salem, James Flint, D. D. 

Portsmouth, Nathan Parker, D. D. 
The Council organized by the appointment of 

Ezra Ripley, D. D. Moderator. 

Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. Scribe. 

Brother Samuel M. Burnside, Assistant Scribe. 
The Rev. Moderator led the Council in Prayer. 

A communication, delivered to the Rev. Dr. Ripley, from the Rev. Dr. Holmes, 
denying the jurisdiction of this Council, was read, with certain papers designed 
by members of the Church and Parish as a remonstrance against the continued 
session and proceedings of this Council. Whereupon, 



Council, elected by the Parish, on his neglect and refusal to join in the election 
of it, and refused to appear, as a party, before the Council ; but, with extraordi- 
nary address, consummate art, and incomprehensible justice, secretly sent the 
above letter to an old and intimate friend, a member of that Council, containing an 
artful statement and argument of his case. The Parish had no knowledge of that 
letter before the publication of a copy of it by " the church " in said " Account," &c. 
Was Dr. Holmes a party before that Council, after having publicly denied its 
jurisdiction? He, by that letter, argued his case to it; and by his unusual dex- 
terity, protected himself against an answer, as effectually, as if he had delivered 
it from the pulpit. The Committee of the Parish intended to be faithful to their 
constituents, and to manage the case before the Council, according to the best 
of their knowledge and ability, according to the rules of law and ancient and 
approved principles and usages, for the purpose of obtaining a just result; but 
they must acknowledge, that the publication of the copy of the above letter 
demonstrates, that they were deceived and led into a monstrous error, as they 
believed that they were conducting the trial of the case before an ex parte Coun- 
cil, without an opponent, when, in fact and in truth, Dr. Holmes by his said letter, 
was their antagonist, attempting to operate upon the minds of the Council, with 
his extraordinary art, power, and eloquence. It is a fundamental principle in 
the government of this Commonwealth, that " it is the right of every citizen to 
be tried by judges as free, impartial, and independent, as the lot of human- 
ity will admit." The eternal principles of justice require impartiality in all 
judicial tribunals, whether created by the law, or by the act of the parties, con- 
formably to law ; and, in respect to the qualification of impartiality, there can 
be no sound distinction between Courts of Law, Referees, Ecclesiastical Councils, 
&c. If persons should be permitted to send private letters to those who are 
acting in a judicial capacity, would not their minds be in great danger of being 
biassed, and their impartiality of being destroyed? What individual would not 
feel himself injured by such an act of the opposite party, or, in such a case, 
would be convinced, if a decision were made against him, that justice had been 
done him ? If such a practice were to be tolerated, it would almost annihilate 
the numerous and inestimable, advantages now derived from an impartial ad- 
ministration of justice. It is not allowed. U cannot be tolerated. Religion, law, 
morality, reason, common sense, forbid it. What would be the legal consequence, 
if a party to a suit should send such a letter to a Judge of a Court, or a juror, 
relating to the suit on trial there ? Would it not be an offence against the public 
administration of justice, which would not escape due punishment ? 



83 



Voted, That the Rev. Dr. Porter and Brother Zechariah F. Silsbee be a com- 
mittee to wait upon and inform the Rev. Dr. Holmes, that this Council have re- 
ceived and read the communication made by him, by the committee of the 
Church, and by individuals of the Parish, and will be happy to receive from 
them, either by person, or in writing, any further information, which he or they 
shall think proper to introduce. 

The committee reported, that they had waited upon the Rev. Dr. Holmes, 
were kindly received, and were told by him, that he had no further communica- 
tion to make to this Council. 

On the part of the committee of the Parish, their proceedings in relation to the 
Rev. Dr. Holmes were introduced, accompanied by various communications, 
which passed to and from said Committee and Rev. Dr. Holmes, bringing to 
view the conditions upon which he and a majority of the members of his Church 
would consent to the calling of a mutual Council. Whereupon, 

Voted, unanimously, That Dr. Holmes has declined a compliance with the re- 
quest of the Parish to call a mutual Council, except upon conditions with which 
the Parish could not comply, consistently with their rights.* 



* " Consistently with what rights ? With the right to choose half the members 
of the proposed Council ? No ; for this right was expressly admitted to them. 
With the right to be heard fairly, and fuliy, and in any manner they pleased, 
before the proposed Council ? No ; for this right never was disputed, and would 
not have been. What right of the Parish then would have been yielded, if they 
had assented to the proposal of Dr. Holmes and the Church ? Obviously no 
right at all ; unless it be contended that the Parish have a right to trample on the 
Church at pleasure." Account, p. 45, note. 

The foregoing note appears to be a fine specimen of interrogative logic and 
catechetical eloquence. Each of the questions included in it, will be answered 
separately, in a style of humble imitation of the author. 

" Consistently with what rights?" With those sacred and inalienable rights, 
which the moral Governor of the universe and the final Judge of all, has given, 
not merely to the members of the church militant, but equally to every member of the 
human race, to every subject of his moral empire. Those rights, which all religion, 
natural and revealed, which every human government, founded on the eternal 
principles of rectitude and of rational liberty, give and secure to all persons, who 
are the subjects of moral rule, and require to be defended and preserved invio- 
late. 

" With the right to choose half the members of the proposed Council ? " No. 
But with the right of the Parish, by itself, without the Church, to choose the 
most wise, impartial, charitable, and pious persons to be members of an ex-parte 
Ecclesiastical Council, unless Dr. Holmes, in a constitutional and legal manner, 
would join in the choice of a Mutual Council, without annexing to his consent 
to join, any illegal condition, to which the Parish could not conform without 
great danger to their most valuable rights and great inconvenience, delay, and 
expense to themselves, and to which they were not by law, or reason, or religion 
bound to submit; with the right to confine this controversy to the legal parties 
to the contract between the Parish and Dr. Holmes, to which contract the 
Church was not, and could not be, in law, a party ; with the right to refuse the 
admission of the Church, as party, because the Church had no controversy 
with Dr. Holmes ; with the right to reject the Church, as party, because the in- 
dividuals, composing the majority of the Church, had, not only condemned and 
opposed all the principles and proceedings of the Parish in this controversy, but 
had encouraged Dr. Holmes to condemn and oppose them, and pledged them- 
selves to Dr. Holmes to support him, in future, in his opposition to the Parish. 

" With the right to be heard fairly and fully, and in any manner they pleased, 
before the proposed Council?" No. But with the right to have a Council, 
who would hear fairly and fully, and decide, not according to the creed of an 
exclusive denomination and independently of the evidence, but according to law 
and the evidence, and the principles of rectitude and of rational liberty. 

" What right of the Parish would have been yielded, if they had assented to 
the proposal of Dr. Holmes and the Church ? " Their constitutional right ; their 
right to an adequate remedy against the innovation and usurpation of Dr. 
Holmes ; their right to hear such preaching, as they believe to be true, in prefer- 



84 



Attended to a paper, purporting to be a complaint forwarded by a committee 
of the Parish to Dr. Holmes, and to the papers, forming a correspondence be- 
tween him and his parishioners. 

Attended also to the reading of extracts from several pamphlets, produced with 
a view to communicate to this Council the history of this Parish, and their for- 
mer ministers, the Rev. Dr. Appleton and the Rev. Mr. Hilliard, to evince the 
spirit of Dr. Holmes, in past years, and the rules, by which he believed it indis- 
pensable, that a Christian minister should be guided, and to possess them of all 
facts, requisite to a competent knowledge and judgment of the case submitted 
to them. 

A number of witnesses were introduced, who testified to the following points, 
viz. ; — that for about three years past, the intercourse of the Rev. Dr. Holmes, 
with his brethren in the ministry, had been of an exclusive character; that can- 
didates and ministers, who were previously introduced into his pulpit, had been 
excluded by him ; that the preaching of the Rev. Dr. Holmes had become un- 
charitable and denunciatory;* that these several causes had alienated the affec- 



ence to being confined by Dr. Holmes and a small number of the parishioners, 
members of his Church, to that which they disbelieve and can not omit to con- 
demn ; their right as a majority, a large majority, of the parishioners, to decide 
parochial questions, according to the principles of a free government, and of 
equal rights of suffrage, without being governed, controlled, injured, or molested, 
or having their dearest and immensely valuable rights violated, or impaired, by 
the unconstitutional interference of a minority, composing a very small fraction 
of the. Parish, and claiming a right of double suffrage ; a right to recover and 
secure their natural, civil, and religious rights and privileges, without being op- 
posed, obstructed, perplexed, or delayed, by those, who had no legal right to be 
a party, who before had denied and opposed, with great zeal, boldness, ingenui- 
ty and perseverance, all the principles professed, rights claimed, and measures 
proposed by the Parish, and encouraged and assisted Dr. Holmes in denying and 
opposing them, and determined, in future, to make all possible opposition to the 
principles, claims, and proceedings of the Parish ; a right to avoid a company, 
with whom they have not been able to harmonize ; a right to exclude those 
from this controversy, who exclude the Parish from religion, or deny to them 
the Christian name and character. 

* " The witness who testified, ' that the preaching of Dr. Holmes had become 
uncharitable and denunciatory,' is a gentleman who was dismissed from the First 
Church in Cambridge to join the Church in Harvard College, in 1814. He has 
stated to Dr. Holmes, since the Council, that he did not use the word 1 denuncia- 
tory,' and should not use it. But on more recent and particular inquiry by an- 
other person, he has admitted, that when asked by a member of the Council 
whether the preaching of Dr. Holmes had not become uncharitable and denun- 
ciation, he said that it had, although he did not himself use the word 1 denuncia- 
tory : ' a distinction about words, of which no man not well versed in the learned 
languages would have thought of availing himself! Dr. Holmes denies the 
charge here made, and appeals to his manuscripts, which may be examined to 
ascertain whether there can be found in them all a sentence of denunciation 
against those of other denominations. — The same gentleman stated before the 
Council, that he had taken the liberty to speak to Dr. Holmes, on the subject of 
his offensive preaching, by way of caution. When this caution was given, the 
o-entleman did not state ; and as Dr. Holmes has no recollection of it, the reader 
as well as ourselves, must be content to remain in ignorance. 

" Another prominent witness, a member of the Church, stated that 1 the preach- 
ing of Dr. Holmes had become so offensive, that he was induced to worship in 
other places one half the time ; ' and in regard to the alleged state of seriousness 
in the society for some time past, and the admissions to the Church 1 that he be- 
lieved then, and always should believe, that these accessions, and especially when 
seven were admitted at one time, were the result of a concerted plan for the purpose 
of making a show.' This attack upon the character of the pastor, the deacons, 
a majority of the male members of the Church, and upon the seven individuals 
admitted to the Church, is but one amongst the many instances of the melancholy 
effects of long-indulged and overwrought feeling. It is hoped, for the sake of 
the unhappy author of it, that he will be as quick to repent, as those attacked 
are ready to forgive him." Account, pp. 45, 46, note. 



85 



tions of a majority of the Parish and tended to the injury and dissolution of the 
Society. The Hon. Samuel Hoar, in behalf of the Parish, then presented before 
the Council, in all its various relations and bearings, the controversy between 



It is alleged in the foregoing note, that Dr. Holmes denies the charge, that his 
preaching " had become uncharitable and denunciatory," and appeals to his 
manuscripts, and that they " may be examined to ascertain, whether there can 
be found in them all a sentence of denunciation against those of other denomina- 
tions." How much those manuscripts contain of Dr. Homes' preaching, we do 
not know, and how much of what he delivered from his pulpit was extempora- 
neous effusion we can not determine ; and we have no evidence to identify the 
manuscripts from which he preached. If those manuscripts contain all which 
the Doctor has preached, within a few years past, in our opinion, they would, 
on inspection, exhibit plenary evidence of the truth of the above charge, in 
relation to several denominations. It is to be presumed, that Dr. Holmes, in 
denying the above charge, understands " uncharitable and denunciatory," within 
the limits of their grammatical meaning, and according to the intention of those 
who used them concerning him. Although Dr. Holmes has not, in his preaching, 
named particular persons, or denominations, yet he has designated them with 
great accuracy, and excluded from the minds of his auditors all reasonable doubt 
in relation to the objects, at which he aimed, and against which he directed his 
authorities, arguments, censures, cautions, satire, condemnation, and terrors. As 
the Doctors memory appears to have failed, in some degree, perhaps we can 
assist his mind, by asking him, whether he recollects several of the sermons 
preached by him since the origin of the society of Baptists and the society of 
Universalists in Cambridgepoit, in which, he endeavored to prove, lhat some of 
the peculiar theological principles of each of those denominations are false, and 
that the doctrines of the Universalists are not only false, but dangerous in the 
extreme, and that those who adopt them, must do it at their everlasting peril ? 
We would further inquire of Dr. Holmes, whether he has a definite recollection 
of a considerable number of his sermons, preached within the few years last 
past, relating to the doctrine of the Trinity, to future punishment, to the atone- 
ment, regeneration, faith, and other theological subjects, on which there is a 
diversity of opinion, between those, who call themselves Orthodox, and Unitari- 
ans? and whether, in the last mentioned sermons, he did not, at different times, 
repeatedly attempt, by scriptural authorities, by arguments, and by citing the 
opinions of authors, to convince his auditors, that the pecuVar theories of Unita- 
rians, on the subjects above mentioned, were false, dangerous, and inconsistent 
with a rational expectation of salvation, and that his auditors would incur the great- 
est possible danger, as to their future and eternal condition, by the adoption of them ? 
Does Dr. Holmes recollect the numerous efforts he has made to prove. the truth 
of the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity, and his eloquent exclamations against 
the impiety of those, who deny that doctrine, and adopt the Unitarian theories 
concerning God and his only Son, Jesus Christ? Does Dr. Holmes remember, 
on having them suggested to him, how often the majority of this Parish, as to 
their principles and practice, during this controversy, have been censured and 
condemned by him, and those, whom he has invited to preach here ? Has Dr. 
Holmes discovered a mode, in which he and those, whom he invites to preach, 
can pronounce the principles of the majority of his parishioners and of the de- 
nomination of Christians to which they belong, to be false, opposed to the essential 
doctrines of the Gospel, to be another gospel, and dangerous to their souls, in the 
highest degree, and such as not only destroy all rational hope of future happiness, 
but expose them to everlasting punishment, and yet venture to assert, that such 
preaching is not " uncharitable and denunciatory ? " Dr. Holmes formerly ex- 
changed with a large number of ministers of the liberal denomination. Within 
three or four years., he has refused to exchange with them and has said, that he can- 
not do it conscientiously. This exclusive practice is uncharitable. Is it not highly 
probable, that Dr. Holmes' preaching has justified that practice and conformed to 
it ? It will be seen from some of Dr. Holmes' writings above, that he considers 
himself responsible for what is preached by those, whom he introduces into his pulpit ; 
and there can be no very good reason, why he should not, on the same principle, 
be responsible for what has been preached in the Parish, by those, whom he has 
invited into it, and to whom he and his friends have been approving auditors. It 



86 



the Parish and the Rev. Dr. Holmes, and closed his address with a submission of 
the question — Is it expedient, proper, and just, that the relation of the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes to the First Parish in Cambridge, as their pastor, be dissolved ? After 



is stated is the " Account," he. p. 40, that 11 the Orthodox regard Unitarians as 
having departed from the essential doctrines of the Gospel, and it is on this account 
that they decline exchanges with them.'' If this is the opinion of Dr. Holmes, as it 
must be presumed 10 be from its being published in the " Account," it is such 
evidence as makes it very difficult to understand w hat Dr. Holmes means by de- 
nying (he above charge. The above note has not convinced us, that the charge is 
not true ; but we wish to have it fully understood, that, in our opinion, it is true 
and can be proved, not by one ivitness only, but by many. There were before the 
Council several witnesses, who harmonized with the first witness, who is the sub- 
ject of the above note, in their testimony in relation to the uncharitable and de- 
nunciatory character of Dr. Holmes' preaching. Many other persons, who have 
been auditors of Dr. Holmes, agree perfectly with the witnesses, who were exam- 
ined, on that subject. We can not now take Dr. Holmes' 1 opinions, in relation to 
his preaching, as a substitute for our own recollections of what we heard, fell, and 
understood. The author of the above note knows, that it is a most vain thing for 
him to attempt to impeach the witness, whom he has assailed, and that no gen- 
tleman in the community has less to fear from such an attack, as all his acquaint- 
ance can testify, that he is highly distinguished for his moderation candor, char- 
ity, veracity, justice, truth, prudence, as well as liberal and gentlemanly con- 
duct. It is unfortunate for the author of the note, that his sectarian feelings 
impelled him to make such an imperfect and mutilated report relative to that gen- 
tleman's testimony, asjustice and propriety required the author of the note, either 
to report the whole testimony, and the whole of the subsequent conversations 
relating to it, and the circumstances attending those conversations, and, in par- 
ticular, the excitement of those, who conversed with him, or to omit the subject 
entirely. Can it be imagined, that such a mutilated account is published for any 
purpose but that of making a false impression upon the minds of readers and of 
creating prejudice ? There is a just suspicion, that the author of the note has 
restricted " denunciatory " to one of its several acceptations adapted to the state 
or his own mind and to the purpose of that note, without recollecting the various 
other significations of that word, and the right of the witness to use it in any one 
of its meanings, which conforms to good usage. This reference to the definitions 
of 'denunciatory' is made, to show the author of the note, that, if the witness 
had used that wordpt would have been true in several of its grammatical senses, 
and that, before writing the note, he ought to have ascertained the meaning 
which the witness attached to it. If Dr. Holmes and those, who have preached 
for him, in this Parish, in his presence, and with his approbation, have accused 
Unitarians wiih professing and teaching doctrines, which are false, opposed to 
" the essential doctrines of the Gospel," inconsistent with a rational hope of sal- 
vation, and exposing them to future condemnation and everlasting punishment, 
and solemnly declared, that those, who believe those Unitarian doctrines 
incur the displeasure of God, and proclaimed that God- will hereafter make them 
the objects of his wrath and of eternal misery, has not Dr. Holmes' preaching, 
and that, for which he, on his own principle, is responsible, been "uncharitable 
and denunciatory ? " Let the wise and impartial decide. 

Dr. Webster in his quarto Dictionary defines " Denounce " — 

1. To declare solemnly; to proclaim in a threatening manner; to announce, 
or declare, as a threat. 

2. To threaten by some external sign, or expression. 

3. To inform against; to accuse, as to denounce one for neglect of duty. 
See his definition of Denunciation — 

3. Publication, proclamation, annunciation, preaching; as a faithful denuncia- 
tion of the Gospel. Milner. 

See his other definitions of Denunciation and Denunciator. 

See " Denuncio " and " Denunciatio " in Young's Lat. Diet. 

See " Denuntio" and " Denuntiatio " in Ainsw. Lat. Diet. 

From an examination of the definitions of the original words from which De- 
nounce and Denunciation are derived, it will appear that Dr. Webster has not 
attributed to them too great a latitude of meaning. 

The other " prominent witness " alluded to and censured in the above cited 



% 



87 



deliberating upon and viewing the facts and various evidence offered for our 
consideration and decision, this Council adopt the following votes. 

Voted, That there is plenary evidence of the facts, that Dr. Holmes has materially 
varied in his ministerial and christian intercourse from that of his two immediate prede- 
cessors, and from that of more than thirty years of his own ministry ;* that such change 



note, has a perfect right to complain of the mutilation of his testimony, by the 
author of that note, in his very imperfect, partial, and censorious report of it. 
The author of the note much prefers the style of the satirist to that of the report- 
er, and the infliction of wounds to the disclosure of the truth. Dr. Holmes' 
preaching was often offensive to the majority of the parishioners, and not only 
this " prominent witness," but many olhers, were induced to worship, in other 
places, " one half the time," and some of them the whole time. This witness is 
not peculiar in his views in relation to the 7 accessions to the Church, mentioned 
in his testimony, especially in relation to the seven admitted at one time, 
which he supposed to have been the " result of a concerted plan of making a 
show." Were these seven persons all propounded for admission into the Church 
at the same time? Was there not an opportunity for admitting some of them 
before the others, if there had not been a plan for admitting them together? 
Was there any thing immoral, or irreligious, in the plan of admitting all of them, at 
one time, for the purpose of showing a large accession to the Church, in order to 
make a moral and religious impression on the minds of those, who should be 
spectators of their admission ? Such a plan for the purpose of increasing the 
moral and religious effect of the ceremony was undoubtedly consistent with the 
best principles. The "prominent witness" did not say, that anyone of the 
seven was not a suitable person to be a church member, or that the admission of 
any one of them was improper. The conclusion, which an impartial mind 
would, probably, draw from the testimony taken together, without any mutila- 
tion, or artful abridgment, would be, that the witness meant, that the admission 
of seven members to the Church at one time, if viewed alone, without attending 
to other facts, would lead to the conclusion of a greater religious excitement in 
the Parish than really existed. What, then, is this alleged " attack upon the 
character of the pastor, the deacons, and a majority of the male members of the 
Church ?" It required a suspicious and uncharitable state of mind, and a morbid 
sensibility, and a satirical taste, and " the melancholy effects of long-indulged and 
over-wrought feeling," in the author of the note, to incline and enable him to 
write it, and then to call " the unhappy author" of the supposed altack to " re- 
pent." "The unhappy author" would be very wild in his imagination, if he 
should desire forgiveness, or anticipate it, from those, who approve " the attack" 
upon his character. 

* " The two immediate predecessors of Dr. Holmes never exchanged with avowed 
Unitarians ; and although Dr. Holmes himself has been slow to believe, in regard to 
certain individuals, that they were Unitarians, he has never intended to exchange 
with those who openly avowed the sentiment — and especially with those who reject- 
ed, as most Unitarians now do, the doctrines of grace." "Account" 8fc. p. 46, note. 

The Rev. Mr. Hilliard, the immediate predecessor of Dr. Holmes, did exchange 
with Unitarians, who were generally known to be of that denomination ; and unless 
Mr. Hilliard was more ignorant of the theological theories of the ministers, with 
whom he exchanged, than other clergymen, and a great multitude of the laity were, 
there is an irresistible presumption that he knew perfectly that he did exchange with 
Unitarians. It never can be presumed, without a gross violation of the principles of 
reason and rules of evidence, that any minister does not know the theological de- 
nomination of his professional brethren, with whom he is intimately acquainted and 
with whom he exchanges. The pretence of such ignorance by a minister, advanced 
in years, extensively acquainted with society, devoted to historical and biographical 
researches, favorably situated for acquiring an extensive and accurate knowledge of 
professional men, especially of those of his own profession, would be a mockery of 
common sense, and an insult to the understandings of all, who should be called on 
to believe it. Dr. Appleton, the predecessor of Mr. Hilliard, adopted " orthodoxy 
and charity," for his motto, and his practice, as a minister and a man, conformed to 
it, and he maintained a pastoral intercourse with the most liberal pastors in this vi- 
cinity, and fully approved Mr. Hilliard, as his colleague. It will be perceived, that 
the phrase, " avowed Unitarians," is often used by Dr. Holmes and his friends, in a 
sense, not only peculiar, but in some degree, devious from the best usage. Do they 



ss 



more essentially affects the peace, comfort, and edification of the Parish, than any- 
mere change in speculation, or in points of dogmatical theology ; that this change has 
heen persisted in, contrary to the repeated remonstrances of a large majority of the 
Parish, consisting of about three fourths of the legal voters, including several mem- 
bers of the Church ; that this course has greatly grieved them, and so far impaired 
their confidence in their pastor, as to preclude the possibility of continuing his minis- 
terial relation to them, either with comfort to himself, or any prospect of advancing 
their religious interests. 

Voted, That the First Parish in Cambridge have sufficient cause to terminate the 
contract subsisting between them and the Rev. Dr. Holmes, as their minister, and 
this council recommend the measure, as necessary to the existence and spiritual 
prosperity of the society. 

This Council wish it to be distinctly understood, that the service, to which we 
have, in Providence, been called, is one of the most painful services of our life. We 
do not arraign, or condemn, the motives of the Rev. Dr. Holmes. We are happy 
to testify, that all our impressions of his course, during the peaceful state of his soci- 
ety, are associated with the most interesting and honorable views of his ministerial 
character and the christian spirit. We sympathize with him under his trials,* and 
devoutly pray, that the consolations and rewards of the religion he has preached 
may be his inheritance. We lament with this Parish, that the principles and prac- 
tice of the times on which we have fallen, have, in any degree, interrupted the quiet 



mean that a minister must proclaim with a trumpet, that he is a Unitarian, to 
make him " an avowed Unitarian ?" and that one, who makes it generally known, by 
any of the common means of conveying imformation, that he is of that denomination, 
is not to be considered " an avowed Unitarian," because he has not publicly announ- 
ced it by the loundest proclamation, or advertised himself as such ? Has " Dr„ 
Holmes himself, been sloiv to believe, in regard to certain individuals, that they were 
Unitarians ?" How Dr. Holmes contrived to prevent the common, natural, effect of 
evidence on his understanding and has rendered himself" slow to believe" that evi- 
dence, which produced a general conviction and uniform belief in the minds of others, 
requires some explanation, to make it credible, that the susceptibilities of his mind 
are exceptions from the natural laws of intellect, and that, what produces conviction in 
other persons, produces rational doubt only in him. 

" * The sympathy here expressed, if felt at all, must have been a feeling of a very 
extraordinary character ; — like the sympathy of him who should knock down his 
neighbor and then sympathize with him because he did not stand ; — or like the sympa- 
thy of him, who should take away another's living, and then sympathize with him be- 
cause he was poor. The Council recommend Dr. Holmes' dismission, and then 
sympathize with him because he must be dismissed ! They do all in their power to 
further the designs of his opposers, and add weight to his trials, and then sympathize 
with him under his trials !" "Account," 8fc. p. 47, note. 

The Council were called to hear the controversy between the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge and Dr. Holmes, and to decide it impartially, according to those principles of 
law, morality, and religion, which were justly applicable to it, without regard to mere 
pecuniary consequences, and without indulging any sympathies, which would pro- 
duce a violation of those principles, in relation to the Parish or Dr. Holmes. Justice 
sees only the case to be determined, and is blind and insensible to every thing ex- 
trinsic to it, which has the least tendency to cause a deviation from righteous judg- 
ment ; but after the decision, can consistently with perfect rectitude, see, feel, and 
sympathize with, the party, suffering from his own infringement of the rights of 
others. The most wise and impartial judge may exhibit perfection in his judicial 
character, without even the shadow of departure from the public rules prescribed to 
him, and yet retain and display all the best feelings, sympathies, and affections of a 
man and Christian. When the author of the above note composed it, his under- 
standing must have been clouded with the monstrously erroneous opinion, that the 
members of the Council could not do their duty to the Parish, without being deprived 
of the ability and right to sympathize with Dr Holmes after having done it. Accord- 
ing to the principles of the author, if the members of the Council had violated the 
rights of the Parish by a decision in favor of Dr. Holmes, they could not have a 
right to make the Parish the object of their sympathies ; but, if they had done it, 
such a decision, in the mind of the author, would undoubtedly have sanctified those 
sympathies and protected them against his censures and insults ! ! 



81 

and blighted the prospects of a society, which, from the earliest period of its exist- 
ence, has known how good and how joyful it is for Christians to dwell together in 
unity. We honor the members of this Parish, for the marked deliberation, candor, 
frankness, veneration for the christian ministry, and for the institutions of the gospel, 
apparent in all their measures* We offer them our sympathy and friendly aid. We 
urge them, in the exercise of charity and tenderness, to prosecute their future course. 
We implore them the guidance and benediction of heaven, and that this christian 
community may be built up in faith, order, purity, prosperity, charity, and peace. 
Voted unanimously, to accept and publish the above as the result of Council. 

EZRA RIPLEY, Moderator. 

NATHANIEL THAYER, Scribe. 

SAMUEL M. BURNSIDE, AssH Scribe. 
A true copy, NATHANIEL THAYER, Scribe. 

Agreeably to the vote of the Committee, an attested copy of the said 
Result was transmitted to Dr. Holmes. 

On the foregoing result, the publishers of the "Account," &c. make 
the following remarks. 

"As the whole question whether Dr. Holmes has, or has not, been regularly and 
legally dismissed from the First Parish in Cambridge, depends on the validity of the 
foregoing result, it will be necessary, at some time, to examine it with particular at- 
tention. All we shall attempt at present, will be to state the proper questions respec- 
ting it, and to offer a few remarks tending to lead the public mind to a correct decision. 

" According to established ecclesiastical usage, and to the decisions of our courts, 
an ex parte council has no jurisdiction, unless it be impartially chosen, and unless a 
regular mutual council has been previously offered and refused. Now it will appear 
from the foregoing papers, that the committee of the Parish offered Dr. Holmes a 
mutual council, which he did not refuse. So far from this, he uniformly expressed 
his readiness and his desire for a Mutual Council, and only wished that the Church, 
as a party interested, and as a matter of right, might, if it pleased, be known in the cal- 
ling of it. Accordingly, Dr. Holmes and the Church repeatedly offered to unite with 
the Committee of the Parish in calling a Mutual Council — a Council of which the 
said Committee should select one half — a Council, in which all their rights should 
be respected ; which offer the Committee expressly and repeatedly rejected. Dr. 
Holmes requested the Committee to refer this proposal to the Parish for considera- 
tion, but they refused to do even that. And under these circumstances, they proceed 
ed to call an ex parte Council — not an impartial one, but one composed entirely of 
their own party — by whom Dr. Holmes' dismission was authorized and sanctioned. 

" The questions necessary to be decided, in judging of this subject, are, What is 
a regular, Mutual Council for the dismission of a minister — such an one as is agree- 
able to the usages of Congregational churches, and as has been sanctioned by the courts 



"* The readers of the foregoing pages will judge for themselves to how much 
honor Dr. Holmes' opposers are entitled for the properties here ascribed to them. 
We shall know, too, from henceforth, what measures a Council of' liberal sentiments' 
esteem and honor, as the result of ' marked deliberation, candor, frankness, vener- 
ation for the christian ministry, and for the institutions of the gospel." "Account," 
&c. p. 47, note. 

The liberality manifested by the great author of the foregoing note, in granting to 
the readers of the "Account," &c. liberty to judge for themselves, is, unquestion- 
ably, unprecedented in his practice. We congratulate him on this first specimen of 
his liberality, which, although it appeared after a complete exhaustion of his censures, 
will probably command all the gratitude, which it deserves. This author, before the 
Council published their result, had confined his mind so strictly to the charms of the 
orthodox creed, and had so constantly viewed all things through that as a, medium, 
that he really did not know " what measures a Council of liberal sentiments" es- 
teem and honor, as the result of " marked deliberation, candor, frankness, and ven- 
eration for the christian ministry and for the institutions of the gospel and proba- 
bly, when that result informed him, that those traits of character were not confined 
to his denomination, he was much surprized, and exclaimed, " We shall know, too, 
from henceforth." We have no doubt, that this valuable addition to his knowledge, 
by agitating his mind, will shake off the fetters of his creed, and will ultimately pro- 
duce in him a far better mode of thinking, reasoning, and judging concerning men. and 

12 



90 



of Massachusetts ? And, did the Committee of the Parish offer, and did Dr. Holmes 
refuse, such a Council ? And in deciding these questions, it is not necessary to de- 
cide all the questions which may be started, on the subject of Councils. It is not 
necessary to decide the abstract question, Whether a regular Mutual Council for the 
dismission of a pastor can be called by the Parish and the pastor without the Church. 
Though this is a question which our fathers, even down to the last generation, would 
have found no difficulty in deciding. For when the Church objects to the calling of such 
a Council, and refuses to unite in it, (as was the case with the Church at Sandwich,) 
— or when the Church consents to the measure, but chooses to stand aloof, and 
have little to do with it,) as was the case with the first Mutual Council at Dorches- 
ter,) — it may be admitted that the pastor and Parish may call a regular Council ; and 
still, the question respecting the regularity of the Council, proposed by the Commit- 
tee of the first Parish in Cambridge, remain undecided. For here, the Church did 
not object to a Mutual Council, and refuse to unite in it ; nor did they choose to 
stand alcof, and have nothing to do with it. They wished a Mutual Council, offered one, 
urged one, and only desired, as they were a party vitally interested, that they might, 
in some proper way, be known in the transaction. And the Committee of the Par- 
ish refused them, rejected them, and would not suffer them to have part or lot in the 
matter. The proper question to be decided, therefore, in judging of the regularity 
ty of the Mutual Council, proposed by this Committee, and consequently of the va- 
lidity of the doings of the ex parte Council, is, not whether a pastor and Parish can call 
a regular Mutual Council for the dismission of the pastor, when the Church objects, 
and refuses to unite — nor whether a pastor and Parish can regularly call such a 
Council, when the Church consents to the measure, but chooses to have no part in 
it; — but the proper question is, whether the pastor and Parish can regularly 
call such a Council, when the Church neither objects to the measure, nor chooses 
to stand aloof from it, but wishes and offers to have a proper part in it, and is re- 
jected. This obviously is the question, on which the validity of Dr. Holmes' dis- 
mission depends ; and how shall it be decided ? There can be no doubt how it will 
be decided by Congregational Churches, the world over, if we except a few Unitari- 
an Churches, calling themselves Congregational, in and around the metropolis of 
Massachusetts. But how will it be decided by the Supreme Court of this Common- 
wealth ? They will undoubtedly be called upon to decide it ; and what will be their 
decision? On this subject, it does not become us at present so much as to conjec- 
ture. One thing is certain, they will have no precedents to guide them to a decision"; 
as no similar question is known to have been decided by any Court in Massachusetts. 
It shall be our prayer and hope that they may be guided by that wisdom which is 
from above." '■'■Account,'''' fyc. pp. 47 — 50. 

The Committee, several times, offered Dr. Holmes a Mutual Coun- 
cil, labored a long time to obtain from him a definite, unambiguous, 
and intelligible answer, and he refused it, unless the Church, as a body, 
distinct from the Parish, were admitted, as a party, as will appear 
from his answers to the Committee's several proposals. (See above, 
from page 17 to 20.) At the meeting of the Parish at which the Com- 
mittee were appointed, the memorial of the Church, to be admitted as a 
party, distinct from the Parish, in relation to the proposed Council, 
was presented to the Parish, and considered, and the Parish did not 
grant the prayer thereof because they thought the Church had no le- 
gal right to be a party, separate from the Parish ; because the Church 
had no controversy with Dr. Holmes, and because the majority of the 
Church, as parishioners, had voted, at all the parish meetings, against the 
proceedings of the Parish, in relation to Dr. Holmes, and had, at other 
times, uniformly opposed the Parish, and justified and supported Dr. 
Holmes in his opposition to the Parish. After this decision by the 
Parish against the claim of the Church to be a party, and after the 
Committee had proposed a Mutual Council to Dr. Holmes, and had 
spent much time to obtain the Doctor's ansiver, he requested the Com- 

measures, than he ever had before, and a far more correct and charitable one, than he 
could possibly have derived from his creed independently of the assistance of a 
Council of " liberal sentiments." 



91 



mittee torefer this claim of the Church to the Parish for consideration ; 
which he Committee refused to do, because the Parish had as afore- 
said, decided against that claim, as Dr. Holmes and the Church well knew. 
Dr. Holmes, in answer to the proposal, by the Committee, of a Mutual 
Council, merely expressed a willingness to have a Mutual Council, on 
condition of the Church's being admitted as a party, and this was ex- 
pressed passively, and by way of answer only ; but it will be very difficult 
for Dr. Holmes to show, by any of his papers, that he became an actor 
and the proponent of a council ; the committee never understood 
any one of Dr. Holmes' papers to them to contain such a proposal. 
\\ here is the paper, in which Dr. Holmes and the Church offer or pro- 
pose to the Committee a Mutual Council 1 Dr. Holmes and the 
Church did not wish for a Council, but for the submission of the Parish 
to them, and it is manifest that their policy was to avoid a Council, as 
the history of their management in relation to a Council, we think, will 
show. 

The ex parte Council was impartially chosen and was composed of 
members, not only perfectly impartial, but very eminently qualified in 
all other respects, to investigate and decide the case submitted to them. 
Neither law, nor reason, required the Parish to choose, as members of 
that Council, those who had adopted the Calvinistic exclusive system, 
and firmly un ited themselves to support it, and decided the most impor- 
tant question in the case, before hand, and determined to uphold that 
system against all evidence and right. 

The Church is not, and in law cannot be, a party to a contract be- 
tween a Parish and the minister ; and there cannot be any sound rea- 
son for their having a legal right against the consent of the Parish, 
to be a party in a question relating to the dissolution of such contract. 
The imagination, concerning the decision "our fathers" would have 
made of this question, does not require an answer ; as the decisions 
made before the fathers of the Constitution framed and adopted that, 
are unimportant ; and however well they may be adapted to the taste 
or principles of the author of that imagination, it is not probable that the 
supposed decision will be the rule of our law, until that ignorance, 
bigotry, superstition, persecution, and ecclesiastical usurpation, with 
which too many of " our fathers " were familiar, shall appear again 
to afflict, not ol.1v Baptists and Quakers, but society in general. 
'* Our fathers," when they had the legal right of electing pastors, by 
the colony and province laws, if they wanted an Ecclesiastical Council, 
never condescended to invite, or permit the inhabitants of the town, 
who supported the pastor, to be a party in the choice of such Council. 
Parishes now do nothing more than to act on the same principle then 
adhered to by " our fathers," as church members : the rule of law being 
now changed. The legal questions stated, are founded on a supposed 
state of facts and law, which is not true ; the answer to them will, 
therefore, be omitted, until it shall be necessary for the writer of those 
questions to examine this case " with particular attention" In relation 
to the Supreme Judicial Court, the writer's conclusion, on page 50 of the 
" Account," &c. is worthy of notice. It is, *' it shall be our prayer and 
hope that they may be guided by that wisdom which is from above." 

The Parish committee having been requested in writing, by eighty- 



92 



eight of the legal voters of the Parish, to call a Parish meeting to act 
on the following articles, viz. : 

"1. To choose a Moderator for said meeting. 

" 2. To hear the report, or reports, of any Committee, or Committees, hereto- 
fore appointed by said Parish, who have not already reported, and to act thereon. 

" 3. To hear, and act on, the report of the Committee, which -said Parish, at 
a legal meeting thereof, on the 22d day of December last past, by votes, passed 
by said Parish on that day, duly chose and appointed, to propose to the Rev. 
Doct. Holmes, the Pastor of said Parish, to unite with them in calling a mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council, to advise, in relation to all differences and matters in 
controversy, existing betweeen him and said Parish, and, in case said Holmes 
should not accede to such proposal, for a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, forthwith 
to proceed to the choice of an ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, for the purpose 
aforesaid ; an inspection of said votes in the office of the Clerk of said Parish will 
show the precise extent of the authority thereby given to said last mentioned 
Committee. 

" 4. To hear, and act on, the result of the ex parte Ecclesiastical Council lately 
elected by said last mentioned Committee, for the purpose mentioned in the 
last preceding article ; which Council commenced its session in the Old Court 
House in said Parish, on the 19th day of May current, and continued its session 
there till the 21st day of May current, on which last mentioned day, said Council 
published their said result, in writing. 

" 5. To see, if said Parish will, pursuant to said result of said ex parte Eccle- 
siastical Council, and for the reasons and causes therein mentioned, dismiss the 
Rev. Doct. Holmes from his office of Pastor of said Parish, and terminate the 
contract subsisting between said Parish and him, as their Pastor, or Minister. 

" 6. If said Parish shall dismiss the Rev. Doct. Holmes from his office of Pastor 
of said Parish, as aforesaid, to see, if said Parish will appoint a Committee to 
settle with him, in relation to his salary and to all demands by him against said 
Parish by virtue of the contract between said Parish and him, as their Pastor, 
and in relation to all the real estate, whereof he is seized, as such Pastor of said 
Parish, and belonging to said Parish, or either of them, which said Holmes, as 
such Pastor, now holds and enjoys ; and to pay him, what shall be justly due to 
him, under, and by virtue of, said contract, on such settlement, and any other, 
or further, sum, which said Parish shall, by vote, direct and authorize said last 
mentioned Committee to pay him, or which said Parish shall, by vote, grant him, 
on any equitable principle, although not due to him, in strictness of law. 

"7. If said Parish shall, as above mentioned, dismiss the Rev. Doct. Holmes 
from his office of Pastor of said Parish, to see if said Parish will appoint a Com- 
mittee to take care of the meeting-house of said Parish and the pulpit therein, so 
far as said meeting-house and pulpit shall be necessary, or be wanted, for religious 
purposes, and to procure and employ, for said Parish, a suitable preacher, or 
preachers, to supply said pulpit, and to pay such preacher, or preachers, for 
supplying said pulpit, by drawing orders on the Treasurer of said Parish, or 
otherwise, as shall be expedient. 

" 8. To see, if said Parish will choose a Committee to represent, and act for, said 
Parish, at such time, or times, and in such way and manner, as said Committee, 
or a majority of them, shall think best, in relation to any subjects, matters, and 
things, and any, and either of them, which are, or is, or shall be, in controversy 
or dispute, in any way whatever, in Court, or out of Court, between said Parish 
and the said Rev. Doct. Holmes, and in all things incident, and in any way re- 
lating thereto. 

" 9. To see, if said Parish will appoint, authorize, and require a Committee to 
procure from the records and files of the Church in said Parish, attested copies 
of all parts of said records and files, relating in any way, to the fund, or funds, 
now in the possession, and under the care of said Church, or the Deacons there- 
of, and to use all legal and proper means for the purpose of procuring said 
copies." 

issued their warrant for such meeting, to be held on the 8th of June, 
1829. 



93 



PARISH MEETING, JUNE 8, A. D. 1829. 

A legal meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the First Parish in 
Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
qualified by law to vote in Parish affairs, was held at the old court-house in said 
Parish, on Monday, the eighth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and twenty-nine. 

The warrant for calling said meeting having been read by the Clerk, it was 
voted to elect a Moderator by ballot, to preside at said meeting, and 

Abel Whitney was unanimously elected Moderator of said Meeting. 

The Committee appointed by votes of said Parish, on the twenty second day 
December last past, to propose to the Rev. Dr. Holmes, the pastor of said Parish, 
to unite with them in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, he. presented the 
following 

REPORT. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
To the First Parish in Cambridge, in the County of Middlesex. 

Whereas said Parish, at a legal meeting thereof, on the twenty-second day of 
December last past, by votes passed by said Parish on that day, duly chose and 
appointed the subscribers, a Committee to propose to the Rev. Dr. Abiel Holmes, 
the pastor of said Parish, to unite with them in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical 
Council, to advise, in relation to all differences and matters in controversy, ex- 
isting between him and said Parish, and, in case said Holmes should not accede 
to such proposal, for a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, forthwith to proceed to 
the choice of an ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, for the purpose aforesaid; an 
inspection of which votes will show the precise extent of the authority thereby 
given to said Committee. 

And whereas the third article in the warrant, which has been duly issued for 
a meeting of said Parish, at the old court-house in said Parish, on Monday, the 
eighth day of June current, is to hear and act on the report of said Committee ; 
said Committee now make to said Parish the following report of their doings 
and proceedings, and of facts, relative to the objects and purposes of their ap- 
pointment. The Clerk of said Parish, previous to the thirty-first day of Decem- 
ber last past, transmitted to said Holmes an attested copy of the record of the 
votes, passed by said Parish, at said meeting thereof, on said twenty-second day 
of December last. Said Committee, on the thirty-first day of said December, 
met and chose Abraham Hilliard, chairman, and William J. Whipple, clerk. 
Said Committee, pursuant to said votes, by which they were appointed as afore- 
said, and for the purposes therein and above mentioned, on the first of Januarys 
A. D. 1829, made known to said Holmes their said appointment and the purposes 
of it, and continued their written correspondence with him, relative to an 
Ecclesiastical Council for the purposes abovementioned, until the thirteenth day 
of April last, inclusive, and in their letters, or written communications, addressed 
and sent by them to the said Rev. Dr. Holmes, they several times proposed to 
him to unite with them, as such Committee as aforesaid, in calling a mutual 
Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes above stated ; which letters, or written 
communications, are of the respective dates following, to wit: January, 1st, 
A. D. 1829; February 9th, A. D. 1829; March 9th, A. D. 1829; March 18th, 
A. D. 1829; April 1st, A. D. 1829; and April 13th, A. D. 1829, and are herewith 
exhibited, and constitute said written correspondence on the part of said Com- 
mittee, in behalf of said Parish. Said Holmes, on his part, in answer to the 
abovementioned letters, or written communications, sent by said Committee to 
him as aforesaid, sent to them several letters, or written communications of the 
respective dates next following, to wit: January 1st, A. D. 1829; January 28th, 
1829; February 14th, 1829; March 14th, 1829; March 26th, 1829 ; and April 
8th, 1829, which, with two written communications from the Church of said 
Parish, made to him, and by him enclosed and transmitted to said Committee, 
March 26th, 1829, and April 8th, 1829, constitute the whole of said written cor- 
respondence, on the part of said Holmes, and are herewith exhibited. Said 
Committee, from a careful, critical, and repeated perusal and consideration of 
the abovementioned letters, or written communications, sent by the said Rev. 
Dr. Holmes to them, fully understood and were perfectly convinced, that he de- 



95 



clined and refused to unite with them, as such Committee as aforesaid, in calling 
a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes above mentioned, unless said 
Committee would allow and admit said Church, as a body distinct from said 
Parish, and from said Holmes, as the Pastor of said Parish, to take a part and to 
act in the election of said proposed Council, and in the hearing or trial before it, 
of the case above mentioned, between said Parish and said Holmes ; and said 
Committee believe, that all intelligent, candid, and impartial persons, who shall 
read and critically examine said last mentioned letters, or written communica- 
tions, so sent to them by said Holmes, will, and must, necessarily understand them 
as said Committee did, as above stated. Said Holmes, in relation to such proposed 
Council, claimed rights for said Church, and they claimed rights for themselves, 
which appeared to said Committee contrary to the Constitution and laws of this 
Commonwealth, contrary to the decisions of our Supreme Judicial Court, and 
inconsistent with the rights of said Parish ; and said Holmes required said Com- 
mittee to allow said rights, so claimed by him and said Church, as a condition of 
his uniting with said Committee in calling a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, for 
the purposes above stated, and unless said rights were so allowed by said Com- 
mittee, he would not unite with them for that purpose. Said Committee, in 
their said letter, or written communication, of April 13, 1829, sent to said 
Holmes, as aforesaid, stated to him, that they considered him as refusing to 
agree to their proposal for such mutual Council, and that, agreeably to their 
statement in their then last communication to him, they would proceed to the 
choice of an ex parte Council, to hear and decide on the complaints of said Par- 
ish ; to which last mentioned letter said Holmes sent no answer to said Com- 
mittee. The said Rev. Dr. Holmes having as aforesaid refused to accept the 
proposal for a mutual Ecclesiastical Council, made to him repeatedly as above 
stated, by said Comraitte, pursuant to the authority given them as aforesaid by 
said Parish, said Committee met on the sixteenth day of April last past, and then 
elected the Pastor of, and a delegate from, each of the seven Churches hereinaf- 
ter mentioned, to compose an ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes 
above mentioned ; which seven Churches are as follows, to wit : 

The Church in Concord under the pastoral care of Rev. Ezra Ripley, I). D. 

The Church in Worcester " " " Rev. Aaron Bancroft, D. D. 

The Church in Lancaster " " " Rev. Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. 

The Church in Roxbury " " " Rev. Eliphalet Porter, D. D. 

The Church in Salem " " " Rev. James Flint, D. D. 

The Church in Portland " " " Rev. Jchabod Nichols, D. D. 

The Church in Portsmouth " " " Rev. Nathan Parker, D. D. 

and said Committee, on said sixteenth day of April last, pursuant to said election 
made by them, issued their letters missive to each of said Pastors, so elected as 
aforesaid, and to the Church under his pastoral care, and thereby requested each 
of said seven Churches, by its Pastor and a Delegate from each, to attend, as 
members of an Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes above mentioned, at the 
old court-house in said Parish, on Tuesday, the nineteenth day of May last, at 
10 o'clock, A. M. Said Committee, by their letter to said Holmes, dated May 
9, 1829, sent by them to him on that day, gave him notice of the above men- 
tioned election by them of an ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, for the purposes 
aforesaid, and of the persons elected to compose that Council, and of the above 
mentioned time and place, appointed for the session of said Council. Pursuant to 
said election and said letters missive, on said nineteenth day May last, at said old 
court-house in said Parish, the following persons, so elected as aforesaid, to 
compose said ex parte Ecclesiastical Council, attended ; to wit, from Concord, 
the said Ezra Ripley, D. D. and Deacon Reuben Brown, jun. as a delegate ; 
from Roxbury, the said Eliphalet Porter, D. D. and Deacon William Davis, as a 
delegate; from Worcester, the said Aaron Bancroft, D. D. and brother Samuel 
M. Burnside, as a delegate ; from Lancaster, the said Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. 
and Deacon Joel Wilder, as a delegate ; from Salem, the said James Flint, D. D. 
and brother Zechariah F. Silsbee, as a delegate; from Portsmouth, the said 
Nathan Parker, D. D. without a delegate ; but said Ichabod Nichols, D. D. did 
not attend, nor did any delegate from his church attend. When the above 
named members of the said ex parte Council, who attended as aforesaid, had 
assembled in said court-house, on said nineteenth day of May last, said Com 
mittee requested them to proceed and hear the case, between said Parish and 



95 



the Committee 
above mentioned. 



the said Rev. Dr. Holmes, for which they were elected as above stated, and they 
accordingly proceeded, and elected the said Ezra Ripley, D. D. Moderator, and 
the said Nathaniel Thayer, D. D. Scribe, and the said Samuel M. Burnside, As- 
sistant Scribe, and then proceeded, after an introductory prayer by the said 
Ezra Ripley, D. D. to hear the said case, and after a full and impartial hearing 
and consideration of the same, on the twenty-first day of May last past, published 
their result, in writing, signed by said Ezra Ripley, as Moderator, and by said 
JNathaniel Thayer, as Scribe, and said Samuel M. Burnside, as Assistant Scribe ; 
a true copy of which result, attested by said JNathaniel Thayer, as Scribe, is now 
in the possession of said Committee, and ready to be exhibited to said Parish. 
The business above mentioned, for which said Committee were appointed as 
aforesaid, was so important to said Parish, that they considered it expedient to 
employ able counsel, and they, therefore, in behalf of said Parish, employed the 
Hon. Samuel Hoar, Jr. Esquire, who has examined the numerous and various 
proceedings of said Parish and of said Committee, relating to the matters in con- 
troversy between said Parish and the said Rev. Dr. Holmes, and has also exam- 
ined said result, and considers said proceedings and said result conformable to 
law and to the principles of substantial justice. All the writings above mention- 
ed, relating to the aforesaid business, but not forming part of said correspondence, 
are herewith exhibited. All which is respectfully submitted by 

ABRAHAM HILLIARD, ^| 

ABEL WHITNEY, 

JOSEPH HOLMES, 

FRANCIS DANA, } 

WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

SYLVANUS PLYMPTON, | 

JOB WYETH. J 

Cambridge, June 8, 1829. 

The foregoing Report having been read, it was voted, that the correspondence 
between the said Committee and the Rev. Dr. Holmes relative to a mutual or 
expa, te Ecclesiastical Council be read ; and said correspondence was accord- 
ingly read. 

On the third article in the warrant for the present meeting of said Parish, 
the correspondence of the Committee therein mentioned with the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes therein named, relative f o such mutual, or ex parte Ecclesiastical Coun- 
cil as is therein mentioned, for the purpose therein stated, having been read ; 
and the Report, mentioned in said article, having also been read, it was Voted 
unanimously, that said Report be accepted, and that all the acts, doings, and 
proceedings of said Committee, in, and relating to, the business for which said 
Committee was appointed by said Parish, be, and the same are hereby fully ap- 
proved, ratified, and confirmed, in all respects, and that said Report and this 
vote be recorded by the Clerk of said Parish ; that the writings by said Commit- 
tee, shewing their said doings and proceedings, and relating thereto, and that 
all letters and writings, which constitute said correspondence, and which relate 
thereto, be filed in the office of the Clerk of said Parish. 

[The foregoing Result of Council, (see pp. 82 to 39,) was then read. It is deemed unnecessary again to 

repeat it.] 

Whereupon, on the fourth article in the warrant for the present meeting of 
said Parish, it was Voted unanimously, that the result therein mentioned of the 
Ecclesiastical Council therein mentioned, be and hereby is fully approved and 
accepted by said Parish, and that said result and this vote thereon be recorded, 
by the Clerk of said Parish on the records of said Parish. 

On the fifth article in the warrant for this meeting of said Parish, it was unani- 
mously Voted, that, pursuant to the result, mentioned in said fifth article, of the 
ex parte Ecclesiastical Council therein mentioned, which result has been, by 
vote, fully approved and accepted by said Parish, and for the reasons and causes 
mentioned in said result, the Rev. Dr. Abiel Holmes be, and he hereby is, dis- 
'missed from his office of minister of the Gospel, and teacher of piety, religion, 
and morality in said Parish, and that all connexion between said Holmes, as 
such minister, or teacher, and said Parish, do, and shall henceforth cease. 

On the sixth article in the warrant for the present meeting of said Parish ; 
said Parish having, by vote, dismissed the Rev. Dr. Holmes from his office of 
pastor of said Parish, as expressed in said vote, it was Voted unanimously, that 



96 



said Parish will appoint a Committee for the several purposes mentioned in said 
sixth article, and that Abraham Hilliard, Abel Whitney, Joseph Holmes, Francis 
Dana, William J. Whipple, Sylvanus Plympton, and Job Wyelh be the Com- 
mittee for said purposes, to wit, to settle with said Holmes, in relation to his 
salary, and to all demands by him against said Parish by virtue of the contract 
between said Parish and him, as their pastor, until his dismission by said Parish, 
and in relation to all the real estate, whereof he was seized, as such pastor of 
said Parish, until said dismission, and belonging to said Parish, or either of 
them, which said Holmes, as such pastor, held and enjoyed until said dismission ; 
and to pay him what shall be justly due to him under, and by virtue of, said 
contract, on such settlement, and any other, or further sum, which said Parish 
shall, by vote, direct and authorize said last mentioned Committee to pay him, 
on any equitable principle, although not due to him in strictness of law ; and 
said Parish, in addition to what is due to said Holmes to this day, further hereby 
grant to said Holmes, on equitable principles, but not as his legal right, the sum 
of one hundred and seventy-three dollars and eighty-two cents, equal to the 
pecuniary part of the salary, which would have become payable to him, as 
pastor of said Parish,,for three months from this eigtnh day of June current, the 
day of said meeting, had he not been dismissed as aforesaid, from said office ; 
and the use and occupation of the several parcels of real estate heretofore 
holden and enjoyed by him, as such pastor of said Parish, until the twenty-fifth 
day of January next, but no longer ; which said sum of one hundred and 
seventy-three dollars and eighty-two cents, said last, mentioned Committee are 
hereby authorized and required to draw from the treasury of said Parish, and 
to deliver and pay to said Holmes, on, or before the eighth day of September 
next, which last mentioned sum of money includes what would be payable both 
from the Treasurer of the Parish, and from the Trustees of the Ministerial Fund 
for said three months. 

On the seventh article in the warrant for this meeting of said Parish, said 
Parish having, by vote, dismissed the Rev. Dr. Holmes from his office of pastor 
of said Parish, as expressed in the vote of said Parish, this day passed on the 
fifth article in said warrant, it was Voted unanimously, that said Parish will, 
and they do hereby appoint Abraham Hilliard, Abel Whitney, Joseph Holmes, 
William J. Whipple, Francis Dana, Sylvanus Plympton, and Job VVyeth, a Com- 
mittee to take care of the meeting-house of said Parish, and the pulpit therein, 
so far as said meeting-house and pulpit shall be necessary or be wanted for re- 
ligious purposes, and to procure and employ for said Parish a suitable preacher 
or preachers to supply said pulpit, and to pay such preacher or preachers, for 
supplying said pulpit, by drawing orders on the treasurer of said Parish, or other- 
wise, as shall be expedient. 

On the eighth article in the warrant for the present meeting of said Parish, 
it was Voted unanimously, that said Parish Avill appoint a Committee for the 
purpose therein mentioned, and that said Parish do hereby appoint Abraham 
Hilliard, Abel Whitney, Joseph Holmes, Francis Dana, William J. Whipple, Syl- 
vanus Plympton, and Job Wyeth, a Committee for said purposes, to wit, to 
represent, and act for, said Parish, at such time, or times, and in such way and 
manner, as said Committee, or a majority of tbem, shall think best, in relation 
to any subjects, matters, and things, and any, or either of them, which are, or is, 
or shall be, in controversy, or dispute, in any way whatever, in Court, or out of 
Court, between said Parish and the said Rev. Dr. Holmes, and in all things inci- 
dent, and in any way relating to. 

On the ninth article in the warrant for the present meeting of said Parish, it 
was Voted unanimously, that said Parish will appoint, and they do hereby ap- 
point Abraham Hilliard, Abel Whitney, Joseph Holmes, Francis Dana, William 
J. Whipple, Sylvanus Plympton, and Job Wyeth, a Committee for the purpose 
mentioned in that articlp, and they hereby authorize and require said Committee 
to procure from the records and files of the church in said Parish, attested copies 
of all parts of said records and files, relating i i any way to the tund or funds 
now in the possession, and under the care of said church, or the deacons there- 
of, and to use all legal and proper means for the purpose of procuring said 
copies. 

Voted, That the thanks of the Parish be presented to the Committee of the 



97 



Parish appointed on the 22d day of December last past, for the faithful manner 
in which they have attended to the duties assigned them. 
Voted, That this meeting be dissolved, 

A true record. Attest, WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 
A true copy. Attest, WILLIAM J. "WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Parish. 

At a meeting of the Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge, appointed 
by votes of said Parish on this 8th day of June, A. D. 1829, held on the same 
day, it was 

Voted, That Abraham Hilliard be Chairman, and William J, Whipple be Clerk 
of said Committee. 

A true record. Attest. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, Clerk. 

The Committee presented to Dr. Holmes, on the 12th of June, 
a communication, of which the following is a copy. 

To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, 
Sir, — The subscribers, having, at a legal meeting of the qualified voters of the 
First Parish in Cambridge, held on the Sth day of June instant, by vote of said 
Parish, been appointed a Committee to take care of the meeting-house of said 
Parish and the pulpit therein, so far as said meeting-house and pulpit shall be 
necessary, or be wanted for religious purposes, and to procure and employ for 
said Parish, a suitable preacher or preachers, to supply said pulpit, hereby make 
known to you, that in pursuance of said vote, they have employed a preacher 
to supply the pulpit in the meeting-house of the First Parish in Cambridge on 
the nest ensuing Sabbath, that they will procure and employ a preacher or 
preachers for the succeeding Sabbaths, and that your services will not be requir- 
ed or authorized in the public religious services in the meeting-house in said 
Parish hereafter. We are, respectfully, 

Your obed't serv'ts, 

ABRAHAM HILLIARD, 

ABEL WHITNEY, 

JOSEPH HOLMES, Committee 
FRANCIS DANA, } of 

WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, said Parish, 
SYLVANUS PLYMPTON, 
JOB WYETH, 
Cambridge, June 11, 1829. 

At a meeting of the Committee of the First Parish in Cambridge, held on the 
eleventh day of June, A. D. 1829, it was unanimously voted, that a communica- 
tion, of which the foregoing is a copy, be transmitted to Rev. Dr. Holmes. 

Attest. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, Clerk. 

Soon after said paper was transmitted, on the same day, the Com- 
mittee received the following. 

Dr. Holmes to Committee. 

Cambridge, 11 June, 1829. 
Sir, — I received yesterday through you, as Parish Clerk, a certified copy of the 
votes of the Parish, passed on the Sth instant. By these votes, I perceive that 
my connexion with the Parish, as their minister, is declared to be dissolved, and 
that a dismission, in pursuance of the Result of the ex parte Council, recently 
called by said Parish, is supposed to take place. As 1 have previously entered 
my Protest against the jurisdiction of said Council, and have denied their right 
to take any cognizance of the Complaint exhibited against me by the Parish, 
I now give notice to you, and through you, to the inhabitants of the Parish, that 
I still consider myself as the lawful minister of the Parish, and hold myself ready 
to perform any and all the duties, in or out of the pulpit, which belong to my 
office as pastor of the First Church and Society in Cambridge. 

Yours, 

A. HOLMES. 

13 



98 



You are requested to communicate this to the Committee of the Parish, who 
have cognizance of the subject ; and I ask the favor of an early answer. 

A. H. 

To William J ; Whipple, Esq. Clerk of 
the, First Parish in Cambridge. 

Reply. 

Cambridge, June 12, 1829. 

To the Rev. Dr. Holmes, 
Sir, — In your letter, dated 11 June, 1829, addressed to William J. Whipple, 
Esq., and by him communicated to the subscribers, the Committee of the First 
Parish in Cambridge, " who have cognizance of the subject" mentioned in that 
letter, you acknowledge the receipt of " a certified copy of the votes of the 
Parish, passed on the 8th instant," and you deny the jurisdiction of the ex pari e 
Council therein mentioned, and the legality c>f your dismission from the office of 
Pastor of said Parish, by one of said votes, pursuant to the result of said Coun- 
cil, and you notify the inhabitants of said Parish, that you still consider yourself 
"as the lawful minister of the Parish, and hold " yourself " ready to perforin 
any and all duties, in and out of the pulpit, which belong to " your "office as 
pastor of the First Church and Society in Cambridge." In answer to your said 
letter, said Committee, in behalf of said Parish, state to you, that said Council 
had jurisdiction of the Complaint exhibited to said Council against you ; that 
said result is legal and valid ; that said dismission from said office conforms to 
said result and to law ; that your connexion with said Parish as their minister is 
legally dissolved ; that you are not the minister, or pastor, of said Parish, nor 
have you been such minister, or pastor, since said dismission; that as such min- 
ister, or pastor, you do not owe any such duties as aforesaid to said Parish, and 
that said Parish refuses to accept from you any service, or services, as such min- 
ister, or pastor, thereof. Hereafter you cannot occupy nor use the pulpit of the 
meeting-house of said Parish, as it will be exclusively appropriated to such 
preacher, or preachers, as said Parish shall employ to supply it. 
We are, Sir, respectfully, 

Your obedient servants, 

ABRAHAM HILLIARD, ^| 

ABEL WHITNEY, | 

JOSEPH HOLMES, | The above mentioned 

FRANCIS DANA, } Committee 

SYLVANUS PLYMPTON, of said Parish. 

WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

JOB WYETH, 

At a meeting of the above mentioned Committee of the First Parish in Cam- 
bridge, appointed on the eighth day of June instant, holden on the twelfth day 
of June intsant, it was 

Voted unanimously, That the foregoing reply be made to the communication 
from Dr. Holmes, dated the 11th of June instant, addressed to William J. 
Whipple, as Clerk of said Parish. 

A true record. Attest. WILLIAM J. WHIPPLE, 

Clerk of said Committee. 

June 12, 1829. 

Immediately after the dismission of the Rev. Dr. Holmes, by the 
vote of the Parish, and notice to him thereof, the Committee appoint- 
ed by the Parish, invited the ordained ministers hereinafter named 
to preach for the Parish, and, in behalf of the Parish, employed 
preachers to supply their places. 

The next Sabbath after the dismission of Dr. Holmes, the Rev. 
Dr. Ripley, of Concord, preached in the meeting-house of the Parish. 
Since that time, the Rev. Mr. Francis, the Rev. Dr. Foster, Rev. 
Mr. Green, Rev. Mr. Whitman, Rev. Mr. Huntoon, Rev. Mr. Stetson, 
Rev. Mr. Hedge, Rev. Mr. Walker, and Rev. Mr. Greenwood, have 



99 



preached in said meeting-house, in the above order of their names. 
We have seldom seen larger auditories in that meeting-house, within 
the last three years, than the above named ministers have attracted 
there. The parishioners, who have heard the above named gentle- 
men, have not only approved, but admired, their preaching, which 
was, at the same time, adapted to attract powerfully the attention of 
the auditors, to impress moral and religious truths deeply upon their 
minds, and to excite a lively taste for that theology in which reason 
and divine revelation harmonize. The Church of the Parish have 
organized by choosing a Deacon and Clerk. The sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper was administered, at the usual time, by the Rev. Mr. 
Green. Several new members have been admitted into the Church. 
There is a pleasing prospect of charity and Christian harmony among 
those, who continue to attend public worship in the Parish meeting- 
house. 



APPENDIX. 



Proceedings of the Church of the First Parish in Cambridge, being 
the First Church in Cambridge, since the dismission of the Rev. Dr. 
Holmes. 

As those, who adhere to Dr. Holmes since his dismission, appear 
disposed to question the validity of all proceedings, both of said Parish 
and said Church, in any way relating to the above controversy, it may 
be be proper, here, to state the following acts of the Church subse- 
quent to that dismission. 

" At a meeting of the Church of the First Parish in Cambridge, being the First 
Church in Cambridge, on the twelfth day of July, A. D. 1829, by adjournment of the 
meeting of said Church, duly notified and held, at the meeting-house of said Parish, 
on the 23th day of June, last past — 

" Whereas the First Parish in Cambridge, by vote, on the eight day of June last 
past, pursuant to the previous result of the Ecclesiastical Council mentioned in that 
that vote, dismissed the Rev. Abiel Holmes from his office of minister of the gospel 
and teacher of piety, religion, and morality, in said Parish, and dissolved all con- 
nexion between said Holmes, as such minister, or teacher, and said Parish — 

"And whereas, since that day, said Parish, by their committee, duly appointed for 
that purpose, have employed preachers to supply the pulpit in the meeting-house of 
said Parish, who have, from that day to the present time, on every Sabbath, preached in 
that pulpit, to the inhabitants of said Parish, and numerous other persons, who have 
attended public worship there — 

" And whereas William Hill^rd and James Munroe, who were the deacons of 
the Church of said Parish, before, and at the time of said dismission of said Holmes 
from his said office, as such minister, or teacher, as aforesaid, and divers other per- 
sons, who were at that time members of said church, have wholly neglected to at- 
tend public worship in said meeting-house with said Parish, and to attend the meet- 
ings and the communion of said church there, and have adhered to said Holmes, as 
their minister, and have exclusively attended public worship in the Court-house, un- 
der the preaching of said Holmes, and other ministers there, and have had the sacra- 
ment of the Lord's supper administered there by said Holmes, and said Hilliard and 
Munroe have acted as deacons at the administration thereof there, and wholly ne- 
glected the Church of said Parish and left it destitute of deacons to perform the usual 
and customary duties of that office in said Church ; which said conduct of said Hil- 
liard and Munroe, in relation to said Church, amounts either to a legal abandonment 
and abdication of their said offices of deacons of said Church, or at least to a suffi- 
cient legal cause for dismissing them from their said offices. 

And whereas, it is necessary, under existing circumstances, to have a deacon or 
deacons, a moderator, and a clerk or scribe in said Church ; in the facts above reci- 
ted, said Church consider it, not only their right, but also their duty, at this time, to 
pass the following votes, to wit : — 

Voted, — As said William Hilliard and James Munroe have separated themselves, 
as above stated, from said Church, and abdicated or abandoned their offices as dea- 
cons therein, and left said Church destitute of a deacon, that said Hilliard and Mun- 
roe, severally be removed and dismissed from his office of deacon of said Church, if 
the above stated facts do not amount, in law, to a legal abdication or abandonment of 
said office of deacon ; and that the office of deacon in said church is now vacant, and 
that it is expedient and necessary now to elect a deacon or deacons thereof. 

Voted, To elect by ballot. 

Voted, That Abel Whitney be a deacon of said Church. 

Voted, That Sylvanus Plympton be the Clerk or Scribe of said Church. 

Voted, That the Clerk or Scribe of said Church be, and he hereby is authorized 



101 



and empowered to appoint, notify and call the meetings of 3aid Church, whenever it 
shall be necessary or expedient, 

Voted. That the said Sylvanus Plympton. the Clerk or Scribe of said Church, be 
authorized and required to transmit to said William Hilliard and James Munroe, an 
attested copy of the record of the foregoing votes, and of the foregoing recitals intro- 
ductory to said votes. 

A true copy, Attest, 

SYLVANUS PLYMPTON, 
Cambridge, July 15. 1829. Clerk of said Church. 

Reply to the above. 

Cambridge, July It, 1829. 
Sir, — We received yours of the 15th inst, on Sunday, at nine o'clock, A. M. in 
which you give the proceedings of, what you style, the First Church in Cambridge, 
adopted by them on the 12th inst. We had previously supposed, that in all cases, 
where an individual, or individuals, were accused of any misdemeanour, or mal-prac- 
tice, that the allegations, upon which the complaint was founded, would be made 
known to the party accused, that they might have an opportunity to answer, and 
show cause, if any they had, why judgment should not be had, and sentence pro- 
nounced. But as in the present case, this course has not been adopted, and as we 
deny altogether the right of the body, which you represent, proceeding to exercise 
this, their supposed authority; we deem it inexpedient to take any fariher notice of 
your communication at this time. 

Yours, &.c. 

WILLIAM HILLIARD, 
JAMES MUNROE, 
Deacons of the First Church in Cambridge. 

Tu Dr. Sylvaxus Plymptox. 

The meeting of the Church of the Parish, on the 2Sth day of June, 
1829, was duly notified, in the usual way. from the pulpit, and the 
adjournment of that meeting: was made, conformably to the common 
usage, to the 12th day of July, 1829, when said Church passed the 
above vote, relative to said "William Hilliard and James Munroe. In 
their reply to that vote, they say, " We had previously supposed, that 
in all cases, where an individual, or individuals, were accused of any 
misdemeanour, or mal-practice, that the allegations, upon which the 
complaint was founded, would be made known to the party accused, 
that they might have an opportunity to answer, and show cause, if any 
they had, why judgment should not be had, and sentence pronounced." 
Said meeting and adjournment of the Church were duly and regular- 
ly notified, and if said Hilliard and Munroe had been in the place 
where the duties of their office required them to be, they would have 
had full and complete notice ; and they have no right to complain of 
a want of notice, when their own omission of duty was the only cause 
of their not being notified. The facts stated in the recital to said vote 
are true ; and said Hilliard and Munroe, instead of admitting those 
facts to constitute ;i a misdemeanour, or mal-practice,'"'' publicly jus- 
tify them, and consider them parts of their virtue and their religion. 
Said Church did not call those facts a misdemeanour, or mal-practice, 
but state thern to show the necessity, which those facts produced, for 
parsing that vote, without impeaching the character of those, who are 
the objects of it, and leaving them to enjoy their own favorable 
opinion of those tacts. 



102 



After the dismission of Dr. Holmes in the manner above mentioned, 
he and eight or nine persons, calling themselves " the Church," con- 
voked what they call " an advisory Council," and it is more particu- 
larly described in said " Account," &-c. in the following words ; " An 
Ecclesiastical Council was convened at the Old Court House in Cam- 
bridge, June 17th, 1829, by letters missive from the pastor and First 
Church of Christ in Cambridge, to give them advice and counsel, in 
their peculiar and trying circumstances." 

The Result of said Council is long ; and there can be no sufficient 
reason for multiplying the copies of it, as the unrivalled industry, of 
those, who obtained that result, and of their friends and supporters, 
has circulated it so extensively, that it is difficult to move in any di- 
rection, without observing copies of it, and finding that it has become 
one of the most familiar objects in the community. It is mentioned 
here, for the purpose of stating concisely a few of the principal objec- 
tions, which the Parish makes to it, and of inviting a critical atten- 
tion to it and a careful comparison of it with the contents of this 
pamphlet, that it may appear how far it is founded on the facts of this 
controversy, and the principles of law and substantial justice applica- 
ble to them, or how far it is diametrically opposed to them. Although 
it generally condemns the principles and proceedings of the Parish, 
and justifies and applauds the principles and conduct of Dr. Holmes 
and his adherents, instead of exciting any doubt in the majority of the 
Parish, if it has had any effect upon them, it has confirmed their 
opinion in the rectitude of their cause. Said objections to said re- 
sult are the following : 

1. Before the election of said " advisory Council," Dr. Holmes had 
been legally removed from his office of pastor in said Parish, by a 
vote of the Parish, pursuant to the result of the ex parte Ecclesiastical 
Council herein before mentioned, legally elected by the Committee 
of the Parish, for the purpose above mentioned. 

2. Dr. Holmes at the time of the election of said " advisory Coun- 
cil," was not pastor of the Parish, and had no right to perform any 
act whatever as such. 

3. The meeting of the Church, at which they made said election, 
was irregular ; and they had no legal right to elect such a Council. 

4. The Church did not request the Parish to join in said election 
by them, in conformity to the principle of concurrence between the 
Church and Parish for which the Church contend. 

5. The Church gave no notice to the Parish of said election by 
said Church. 

6. Said " advisory Council " gave no notice to the Parish, and 
they, therefore, had no right to address that Council, even for the 
purpose of objecting to their jurisdiction, and they had no opportunity 
to give any evidence to that Council, or to be heard on any subject 
whatever. 

7. Because many very important and material parts of the evidence 
given by the Parish before said ex parte Council, were wholly omitted 
before said " advisory Council," and the said result of the last men- 
tioned Council was founded on a very partial and imperfect view of 
the facts, arguments, and principles included in the controversy. 



103 



8. Because the result of said " advisory Council " is opposed to 
many facts in the case, which admit of full proof. 

9. Because several of the members of said "advisory Council" 
during its session, were absent at different times, while the other 
members thereof were proceeding in the hearing of the evidence ; 
so that those members, who were so absent, did not hear several im- 
portant parts of the evidence, which was offered. 

10. Because said " advisory Council " in other respects, deviated 
from those rules of proceeding and those usages, which all tribunals, 
which undertake to hear, consider, and decide cases submitted to 
them, ought to observe. 

The foregoing are a few of the objections by the Parish to the 
election of said " advisory Council," and to said result published by 
it. At some future, convenient time, the proceedings and result of 
said advisory Council will be more fully noticed. 



Note. — On page 74, The statement of the evidence, which the 
Committee of the Parish offered to the ex parte Council to support the 
Complaint of the Parish against Dr. Holmes, should have commenced 
with the allegation, that ' All the forgoing papers, whereof copies are 
included in this pamphlet, excepting the address by a Committee of 
the Church to Dr. Holmes, on pages 48 and 49, were read in evidence 
to the Council.' 



PA 



